UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


( 


0) 


^y6 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/factorylegislatiOObarn 


publications 

OF   THE 

inniversit^  of  pennsi^lvania 


SERIES  IN 


Political  Economy  and  Public  Law 


No.   19. 


FACTORY  LEGISLATION  IN  FENNSYL' 

VANIA:  ITS  HISTORY  AND 

ADMINISTRATION 


J.  LYNN  BARNARD,  Ph.D. 

Asststant-Professor  of  History   and  Government, 
Philadelphia   School  of  Pedagogy. 


Published  for  the  University 

PHILADELPHIA 

1907 

THE  JOHN  C.   WINSTON  Co..  SelUng  Agents 
1006-16  Arch  Street.  Philadelphia.  Pa. 


T 


■f 


I 

V 


r 


"Progress     in     Political     Science    has    been    in 
nothing  happier  than  in  Factory  Legislation." 

Duke  of  Argyll. 


"The  progress  of  Factory  Legislation  in  the 
different  nations  furnishes  us  the  principal  and  most 
interesting  example  of  the  gradual  education  of  the 
people  as  regards  the  proper  attitude  of  Govern- 
ment towards  industries." 

W.   F.  WiLLOUGHBY. 


PREFACE. 


By  many  the  meaning  and  scope  of  factory  legislation 
are  only  partially  understood,  and  in  fact  a  brief  definition 
would  be  hard  to  give.  In  terms  of  what  is  included  in  this 
phase  of  governmental  control,  factory  legislation  might  be 
defined  as  the  state's  supervision  over  those  employers  of 
labor  who  operate  factories,  workshops,  mercantile  estab- 
lishments, printing  offices,  bakeshops,  laundries  and  the  like. 
Such  regulations  come  within  the  police  power  of  the  com- 
monwealth, which  may,  in  turn,  be  defined  as  that  power 
which  is  employed  by  the  state  "to  promote  the  health, 
comfort,  safety  and  welfare  of  society."  Factory  legisla- 
tion will  be  found  to  relate  primarily  to  the  safety  and 
well-being  of  the  individual  employee,  rather  than  to  the 
protection  of  the  consuming  public,  thereby  illustrating  the 
dictum  laid  down  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in 
the  important  case  of  H olden  vs.  Hardy:  "The  whole  is 
no  greater  than  the  sum  of  all  the  parts,  and  when  the  indi- 
vidual health,  safety  and  welfare  are  sacrificed  or  neglected, 
the  state  must  suffer."  This  field  of  legislation  concerns 
itself  with  hours  of  labor,  intervals  for  meals,  night  work, 
sanitary  conditions  (including  light  and  air),  the  guarding 
of  machinery,  elevators,  fire-escapes,  a  minimum  of  school- 
ing, and  even  the  time  and  method  of  wage  payment. 

England,  with  its  unitary  type  of  government,  controls 
this  field  of  social  activity,  once  and  for  all,  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment; while  in  our  own  country,  with  its  dual  type  of  gov- 
ernment, the  subject  must  be  taken  up  by  each  common- 
wealth separately.  Congress  has  no  contribution  to  make, 
outside  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  territories,  except 
through  the  information  it  may  furnish  by  means  of  statis- 


vi  Preface. 

tical  and  other  publications,  and  through  the  control  it  may 
exercise  in  the  regulation  of  inter-state  commerce.  Our 
national  government,  being  one  of  delegated  powers,  has 
not  inherited  the  legacy  of  common  law  police  powers, 
which  remain  vested  in  that  "residuary  legatee"  of  our 
political  system — the  commonwealth.  This  re&lilts  both 
favorably  and  unfavorably.  It  enables  the  more  progressive 
states  to  move  faster  than  the  nation  as  a  whole  would  care 
to  travel ;  but  it  makes  the  problem  a  harder  one  when  there 
are  forty-five  battles  to  fight  instead  of  one. 

The  first  state  to  develop  an  effective  factory  code — as 
it  had  been  the  first  to  introduce  the  factory  system  of  manu- 
facture— was  Massachusetts,  with  New  York  second.  Penn- 
sylvania was  a  close  third,  following  the  lead  of  New  York 
rather  than  of  Massachusetts  in  the  method  of  enforcement. 
A  comparison  of  the  two  methods  would  be  of  interest.  But 
the  time  has  not  yet  come  for  a  comparative  study  of  fac- 
tory legislation  in  the  United  States,  and  will  not  have 
arrived  until  a  detailed  account  shall  be  given  us  of  the 
history  and  workings  of  the  factory  laws  in  a  number  of 
typical  commonwealths,  with  a  background  view  of  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  certain  southern  states  where  the 
movement  has  hardly  begun.  Pennsylvania  now  ranks  so 
high  industrially  and  commercially,  and  its  factory  code  is 
so  well  advanced  and  a  strict  enforcement  so  greatly  needed, 
that  it  is  time  to  take  the  backward  glance,  and  then  to 
examine  critically  the  present  status,  in  order  to  take  new 
hope  and  a  fresh  start  for  the  future. 

No  better  setting  for  this  history  could  be  asked  than 
that  intensely  human  and  inspiring  book  by  Mrs.  Florence 
Kelley,  which  she  has  appropriately  styled  "Some  Ethical 
Gains  Through  Legislation."  Mrs.  Kelley  dares  to  assume 
the  right  to  childhood,  the  right  to  leisure :  a  "right"  whose 
ethical  basis  shall  be  accorded  social  recognition  through 
legislative  action.  It  was  with  a  view  to  set  forth  the 
steps,  prosy  and  uninteresting  as  they  may  be,  by  which 


Preface.  vii 

Pennsylvania  has  guaranteed  to  her  toiHng  citizens  one 
social  "right"  after  another,  and  to  indicate  some  of  the 
steps  yet  to  be  taken,  that  this  brief  study  was  attempted. 

Materials  for  such  a  work  as  this  can  be  secured  only 
through  the  co-operation  of  others,  and  the  author  feels 
under  special  obligations  to  those  who  have  assisted  him. 
The  Chief  Factory  Inspector  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  J.  C. 
Delaney,  courteously  gave  permission  to  the  writer  to 
accompany  his  deputies  on  their  rounds,  and  several  inter- 
esting trips  resulted.  Numerous  school  superintendents  and 
principals,  and  others  who  were  or  had  been  participants  in 
the  passage,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  law,  freely  con- 
tributed opinions  and  information.  Professor  Samuel  Mc- 
Cune  Lindsay,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Secretary 
of  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee,  kindly  read  the 
manuscript  and  gave  helpful  criticism.  And  to  my  col- 
league in  the  School  of  Pedagogy,  Professor  William  H. 
Mearns,  and  to  one  of  my  former  students.  Professor  C.  G. 
Haines  of  Ursinus  College,  thanks  are  due  for  that  labor- 
ious and  important  task  of  reading  the  proof  and  offering 
final  suggestions  as  to  both  form  and  content. 

Acknowledgment  is  also  hereby  made  of  the  financial 
assistance  in  the  collection  and  preparation  of  material, 
received  from  the  Department  of  Economics  and  Sociology 
of  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington,  through  Profes- 
sor Henry  W.  Farnam  of  Yale  University.  And,  finally, 
the  author  would  gratefully  record  the  generosity  of  Mr. 
J.  G.  Rosengarten  of  Philadelphia,  and  of  a  friend  who 
wishes  his  name  withheld,  which  has  made  possible  the 
immediate  publication  of  this  monograph. 

J.  Lynn  Barnard. 

School  of  Pedagogy, 
Philadelphia,  December,  igo6. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 


HISTORY. 

Page 

Chapter        I. — Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-1847) 1-17 

Attempts  of  1824,  1827-8,  1833  i 

Dyottville  Glass  Factory  ( 1833) 5 

Senatorial  Investigation  of  1837   7 

Chapter      II. — Early  Child  Labor  Laws  (1848-1855) 18-24 

Act  of  1848 18 

Act  of  1849  20 

Act  of  1S55  22 

Chapter    III. — Fire  Escape  Legislation  (1879-1885) 25-36 

Act  of  1879  25 

Act  of  1883  26 

Fire  Escape  Decisions  (1883-4) 27 

Acts  of  1885 33 

Further  Legislation  Needed  (Decision  of  1895)  .  35 

Chapter    IV. — Attempts    to     Regulate     Payment    of    Wages 

(1879-1901)    37-50 

Payment  of  Wages  Bill  of  1879 37 

Payment  of  Wages  Act  of  1881 38 

Act  of  1881  Declared  Unconstitutional  (1886)..  40 

Payment  of  Wages  Act  of  1887 41 

Amendatory  Act  of  1891 42 

Company  Store  Act  of  1891 42 

Payment  of  Wages  Decisions   (1895-6-7) 43 

Company  Stores — Opinions  of  Attorney  General 

(1896)    45 

Taxation  of  Store  Orders— Bills  of  1897,  1899; 

Act  of  1901  47 

Taxation  of  Store  Orders  Decisions  (1901-2)..  50 

(ix) 


X  Contents. 

Pack. 

Chapter      V. — General  Factory  Acts  (1887- 1893) 51-69 

Acts  of  1887  Relating  to  Women  and  Children.  51 

Factory  Inspection  Bill  of  1887 54 

Factory  Inspection  Act  of  1889 55 

Operation  of  Act  of  1889  60 

Factory  Inspectors'  Reports  for  1891,  1892....  62 

Age  Limit  Applied  to  Elevator  Boys  (1893)  ....  66 

Amendatory  Factory  Act   ( 1893) 66 

Operation  of  Factory  Act  of  1893 67 

Chapter    VI. — Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  (1895-1901)  .  .70-85 

Sweat  Shop  Act  of  1895 70 

Operation  of  Act  of  1895   72 

Sweat  Shop  Acts  of  1897,  1899,  1901 73 

Bake  Shop  Acts  of  1897,  1901  75 

Factory  Acts  of  1897,  1901 80 

Decision  as  to  Adult  Women   (1899) 82 

Chapter  VII. — Child  Labor  Campaign  (1903-1905) 86-105 

Legislation  of  1903  86 

Pennsylvania    Child    Labor    Committee    Organ- 
ized   ( 1904)    90 

Child  Labor  Committee  Investigation  of  1904. .  92 

Bill  of  Child  Labor  Committee  (1905) 99 

Bill   of  Philadelphia  Central  Union  of  Textile 

Workers   ( 1905)    lOo 

Bill  of  Chief  Factory  Inspector  Delaney  (1905)  .  lOi 
Public      Education      Association      Scholarships 

(1905)   X03 


PART  II. 


ADMINISTRATION. 

Chapter  VIII. — Present    Factory    Law    (Exclusive    of    Child 

Labor)  107- 121 

Establishment  Defined 107 

Seats  for  Women  108 

Toilet  Accommodations 109 

Noon  Hour  Intermission  no 

Posting  of  Notices  in 

Safeguarding  of  Machinery    11  r 


Contents.  xi 

Chapter    VIII. — Continued.  Vaq% 

Elevators    1 14 

Light  and  Sanitation  115 

Sweat  Shops  Il6 

Regulations   for  Tenement  Manufacture 120 

Chapter    IX. — Present  Factory  Law  {Continued)   122-134 

Bake  Shops  122 

Boilers    123 

Reporting  of  Accidents  124 

Right  of  Inspection   125 

Fire  Escapes  126 

Penalty   128 

Disposal  of  Fines   129 

Administrative  Duties  of  Chief  Inspector 130 

Annual  Report 132 

Appointment  and  Salaries 133 

Chapter .     X.— Child  Labor  Code  I35-I53 

Minimum  Age  of  Child  Labor   13S 

Public  Education  Association  Scholarships 136 

Vacation  Permits  138 

Working  Day  for  Minors  and  Females 139 

Employments  Prohibited  to  Minors  142 

Employment  Certificates  143 

Early  Operation  of  Law 145 

Educational  Tests  I47 

Physical  Test  148 

Corroborative  Evidence  of  Age 148 

Fees  for  Certificate   149 

Child  Labor  Law  Overthrown    149 

Chapter    XI. — Child  Labor  Code  {Continued) 154-163 

Relation   to   Compulsory   Education   Law 154 

Age  Certificate  After  Sixteen 157 

Issuing  and  Filing  of  Certificate 158 

Requirements  for  Certificate  159 

Age  Affidavit   161 

Fees  for  Certificate    163 

In  Conclusion   164-166 

Appendix. — Factory  Legislation  in  England  (1802-1847) 167-171 


Factory    Legislation    in    Pennsylvania : 

Its    History   and    Administration. 


PART  I. 
HISTORY 


CHAPTER  I. 
Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-1847). 

Attempts  of  1824,  1821-8,  i8js- 

It  is  significant  of  the  peculiar  problem  with  which  our 
country  has  had  to  deal  that  the  beginnings  of  this  form 
of  social  legislation  in  Pennsylvania  should  have  been  made 
along  educational  lines,  for  the  alleged  reason  that  in  a 
democracy  elementary  education  for  its  citizens  is  indis- 
pensable— that  upon  it  depends  the  safety  of  the  state. 

For  the  first  movement  in  this  direction  we  must  go 
back  to  the  year  1824,  when,  on  the  ninth  day  of  February, 
Mr.  O'Neill,  member  from  Philadelphia  County,  made  the 
following  motion  in  the  House  of  Representatives :  Re- 
solved, That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  requiring  the  proprietors  of  manufacturing 
establishments,  who  may  employ  children  under  the  age  of 
twelve  years,  to  provide  for  them  the  means  of  instruction, 
at  least  two  hours  each  day,  in  the  rudiments  of  an  English 
education."  A  few  days  later  the  motion  was  adopted,  and 
a  committee,  of  which  Mr.  O'Neill  was  chairman,  was 
appointed  for  the  purpose  expressed  in  the  above  resolu- 
tion. On  March  6th  this  committee  reported  a  bill  entitled. 
"An  act  providing  for  the  education  of  children  employed 

(I) 


2  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania^. 

in  manufactures."  Unfortunately,  the  House  bills  for  1824 
have  not  been  preserved,  and  the  Harrisburg  newspapers 
(there  was  then  no  Legislative  Record)  fail  to  state  the 
provisions  of  the  bill.  It  was  never  acted  on  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  nor  was  the  matter  considered  in  the 
Senate. 

The  subject  of  education  for  factory  children  was  not 
again  brought  to  the  attention  of  either  House  until  1827, 
when,  on  the  nth  of  December,  the  following  motion  was 
made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Mr.  Richards  of 
Philadelphia,  chairman  of  Committee  on  Domestic  Manu- 
factures :  "Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Domestic 
Manufactures  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
providing  by  law  for  the  education  of  children  employed  in 
cotton,  woolen  and  other  manufactures." 

The  resolution  was  at  once  adopted,  and  four  days  later 
Mr.  Richards  reported  a  bill  entitled,  "An  act  to  provide 
for  the  education  of  the  children  employed  in  manufactories, 
and  also  to  ascertain  the  extent  and  increase  of  said  manu- 
factories within  this  commonwealth."  The  provisions  of 
this  bill  were^  that  "from  and  after  January  i,  1830,  it  shall 
not  be  lawful  for  any  cotton  or  woolen  manufacturer  to 
employ  in  his  factory  any  minor  between  the  age  of  twelve 
and  eighteen  years,  unless  said  minor,  or  his,  her  or  their 
parent  or  guardian,  shall  produce  a  certificate  signed  by  a 
respectable  schoolmaster,  or  two  respectable  citizens  of  the 
county,  that  the  said  minor  can  read  and  write  the  English, 
German  or  some  other  modern  language,  or  unless  said 
manufacturer  shall  provide  for  the  instruction  of  said  minor, 
until  the  provisions  of  this  act  are  complied  with." 

The  enforcement  of  this  law  was  to  be  left  with  the 
assessors,  who  were  to  visit  the  factories  of  their  districts 
and  report  all  violations ;    and  a  manufacturer  or  superin- 

*House  Bills  for  1828,  Bill  No.  80. 


Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-184/).  3 

tendent  failing  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  act 
would  be  liable  to  a  penalty  of  five  dollars.  The  assessor 
was  also  to  send  in  each  year  to  the  county  commissioner  a 
list  of  the  cotton  and  woolen  factories  in  his  district,  with 
the  number  of  spindles  and  looms. 

If  this  bill  could  have  been  passed,  Pennsylvania  would 
have  had  the  honor  of  antedating  England  by  five  years  in 
the  matter  of  providing  for  factory  inspection,  and  of  taking 
its  own  initial  step  in  that  direction  sixty  years  earlier  than 
it  actually  did  take  it.  The  speech^  of  Mr.  Richards  in  sup- 
port of  his  measure  is  one  of  the  few  fragments  of  the  debate 
at  this  time  that  have  been  preserved.  Mr.  Richards  ex- 
plained that  the  committee  "had  directed  their  attention  to 
the  manufactories  mentioned  in  this  bill,  because  it  is  known 
to  all  familiar  with  the  subject,  that  they  are  supported  by, 
and  are  the  only  factories  which  are  based  upon,  the  em- 
ployment of  children.  .  .  .  There  are  now  many  thou- 
sand children  employed  in  our  manufactories,  the  nature  of 
the  employment  is  constant  and  unremitting  from  sunrise 
until  night,  and  never  discontinued,  except  on  Sundays, 
during  the  year.  ...  If  the  poverty  of  the  parent  is 
made  an  objection,  it  may  be  stated  that  in  most  manu- 
facturing districts  our  public  schools  are  at  hand,  and  in  ali 
parts  of  the  state  the  county  commissioners  are  bound  to 
provide  for  the  instruction  of  the  indigent."  Mr.  Richards 
urged  the  beginning  of  legislation  while  the  factory  system 
was  still  comparatively  young,  and  while  the  dreadful  neces- 
sity which  then  existed  in  England  was  not  yet  apparent  in 
this  country.  "The  people  engaged  in  manufactories  are 
destined  to  have  a  powerful  influence  in  our  country — • 
powerful,  because  they  will  be  numerous,  the  more  pow^er- 
ful  because  they  will  be  always  congregated,  .  . 
always  interchanging  sentiments  with  each  other — ahvays 

'See  the  Harrisburg  Reporter  and  Democratic  Herald  for  Februarj 
I.  1826. 


4  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

moving  in  a  body.  I  wish,  sir,  that  this  may  be  an  enhght- 
ened  influence,  a  happy  influence.     .     .     ." 

One  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  held  that  such  laws 
might  do  in  England,  "where  the  great  mass  of  the  popula- 
tion are  burthened  to  support  a  luxurious  and  profligate 
nobility,  .  .  .  but  here,  in  this  happy  country,  every 
man  can,  by  industry  and  frugality,  honestly  and  decently 
maintain  and  educate  his  family.  This  compulsory  measure 
is  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  our  government."  Becoming  more 
specific  in  his  objections  to  the  bill,  this  member  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  power  given  to  the  assessor  was  inquis- 
itorial, and  especially  dangerous  if  in  the  hands  of  an  un- 
scrupulous man;  and  further,  that  an  invidious  distinction 
was  placed  upon  one  branch  of  manufactures. 

Despite  strong  opposition  the  bill  was  passed  by  the 
House,  with  some  important  amendments,  on  March  19, 
1828.  After  being  twice  debated  in  the  Senate,  the  measure 
was  rejected  by  that  body.  This  ended  for  a  time  all  legis- 
lative effort  in  Pennsylvania  to  secure  the  rudiments  of  an 
education  for  factory  children,  the  movement  being  merged 
in  that  larger  one  which  was  evolving  the  public  school 
system  out  of  the  charity  schools  of  that  day. 

The  reports  of  various  meetings  of  workingmen' 
during  1829-30  show  that  their  demands  were:  for  the 
establishment  of  a  "republican  system  of  education ;"  for 
the  exemption  of  certain  property  from  execution;  for  the 
passage  of  a  lien  law ;  and  for  the  abolition  of  imprisonment 
for  debt; — none  of  which,  be  it  observed,  came  under  the 
head  of  factory  legislation.  However,  in  1833,  when  the 
attention  of  the  Legislature  was  again  directed  toward  the 
neglected  factory  children,  the  subject  of  their  long  and 
exhausting  hours  of  labor  was  for  the  first  time  introduced, 
by  a  motion  in  the  House  of  Representatives  (again  made 
by  a  Philadelphia  member),  that  the  Committee  on  Domestic 

'See    Excerpta    of    Matthew    Carey,    Vols.    7    and    24.      (Ridgway 
Branch  Philadelphia  Library.) 


Efforts  Toivard  Legislation  (1824-1847).  5 

Manufactures  be  instructed  to  inquire  "How  far  the  employ- 
ment of  children,  under  fourteen  years  of  age,  is  detrimental 
to  health;  and,  also,  whether  some  regulations  cannot  be 
adopted  by  which  the  time  of  labor  of  such  children  may 
be  limited  to  eight  hours  per  day."  Though  nothing  appears 
to  have  come  of  this  motion,  which  was  promptly  adopted, 
it  serves  as  an  indication  of  the  rising  public  sentiment. 

It  is  a  striking  fact  that  this  attempt  at  legislative  inves- 
tigation of  the  effect  of  factory  labor  on  children  should 
have  followed  so  closely  upon  the  startling  revelations  of 
the  English  Parliamentary  Committee  (Sadler's)  of  1832. 
The  pioneers  in  American  manufacture  found  themselves 
compelled  to  import  skilled  workmen  from  England  and 
Scotland;  and,  naturally,  important  events  in  the  labor 
world  there  were  speedily  felt  in  this  country.  As  England 
had  been  the  first  to  develop  and  perfect  the  factory  system, 
so  she  was  the  first  to  suffer  from  its  evil  effects  and  to 
attempt  remedial  legislation.     (See  Appendix.) 

Dyottmlle  Glass  Factory  (iSjj). 

Before  passing  on  to  the  next  attempt  at  regulating 
factory  labor  in  Pennsylvania,  it  seems  worth  while  to 
present  a  picture  of  what  was,  beyond  a  doubt,  an  excep- 
tional factory;  but  which  shows,  nevertheless,  the  prob- 
lems with  which  the  manufacturers  of  that  day  had  to  deal. 
Dr.  T.  W.  Dyott,  owner  of  the  Dyottville  Glass  Fac- 
tory, which  was  situated  between  Kensington  and  Rich- 
mond, on  the  Delaware,  had  applied  to  the  Legislature  for 
an  act  of  incorporation;  and  in  support  of  this  application 
he  published  a  pamphlet,^  in  1833,  entitled  "An  Exposition 
of  the  System  of  Moral  and  Mental  Labor,  established  at 
the  Glass  Factory  at  Dyottville,  in  the  County  of  Philadel- 
phia."   The  statements  contained  in  this  pamphlet  were  cor- 

*To  be  found  in  the  collection  of  pamphlets  in  the  State  Library, 
Harrisburg. 


6  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

roborated  by  a  special  legislative  committee  sent  to  inves- 
tigate the  place. 

The  writer  says  that  in  their  early  days  American 
manufacturers  were  "exotics,"  being  supplied  almost 
entirely  with  European  artisans,  who  brought  with  them 
their  class  feelings  and  intemperate  habits.  Becoming  tired 
of  the  vicious  men  in  his  employ,  he  had  discharged  all  but 
a  few  of  the  best,  and  had  tried  teaching  the  trade  of  glass- 
blowing  to  young  American  lads,  apprentices,  who  were  at 
the  same  time  given  an  education  comprising  reading, 
writing,  arithmetic  and  grammar,  together  with  singing  and 
religious  instruction.  More  than  this  he  thought  it  would 
be  unkind  to  give  them,  as  it  would  create  tastes  which  they 
would  not  have  the  means  of  satisfying.  He  employed  in 
his  factory  400  persons,  of  whom  130  were  apprentices, 
besides  200  people  variously  occupied  as  teachers,  superin- 
tendents, clerks,  fire-tenders,  wood-choppers,  etc. ;  and  fif- 
teen to  twenty  females  were  employed  in  tailoring,  cooking, 
etc.  These  last  occupied  sleeping  apartments  in  the  house 
of  the  proprietor's  brother,  "where  ever}'-  regard  to  morality, 
decorum  and  piety  is  strictly  observed  and  mildly  enforced." 
A  physician,  apothecary  and  nurse  formed  part  of  the  estab- 
lishment, and  a  minister  conducted  services  regularly  at  the 
factory  chapel. 

The  program  for  a  working  day  was  as  follows :  The 
rising  bell  rang  at  daylight,  and  after  washing  and  dressing, 
considerable  stress  being  laid  upon  the  aj^lutions,  the  appren- 
tices and  workmen  attended  prayers  in  the  school  room,  and 
then  repaired  to  breakfast.  They  worked  from  7  to  12 
a.  m.,  during  which  time  a  period  of  rest  was  allowed  and 
a  luncheon  of  crackers  was  served.  After  an  hour's  dinner 
time  they  worked  from  one  till  six  o'clock,  with  a  similar 
intermission  for  lunch.  Then,  after  washing,  they  ate  sup- 
per, and  might  play  a  short  time  before  attending  school. 
The  smaller  boys  retired  at  8.30,  and  the  larger  at  9.30, 
when  the  gates  were  closed.    In  case  the  apprentices  worked 


Eiforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-184/).  7 

overtime  they  were  paid,  and  might  spend  the  money  on 
"fine  clothes  for  Sunday  and  hoHday  suits,  or  to  buy 
watches,"  or  they  might  let  it  accumulate  as  a  "fund  for 
domestic  purposes."  The  worthy  doctor  believed  in  early 
marriages,  which  he  encouraged  by  providing  dwellings  for 
his  married  employees.  Children  of  seven  years  began 
working  in  the  factory,  first  learning  wicker-work,  in  the 
covering  of  demijohns.  All  employees  lived  on  the  prem- 
ises, and  no  alcoholic  liquors  were  admitted.  The  thesis  of 
Dr.  Dyott's  pamphlet  was  that  moral  instruction  is  indis- 
pensable to  a  well-regulated  factory,  and  that  the  mass  of 
the  people  should  have  neither  mechanical  instruction  with- 
out general  education  nor  the  reverse — a  conclusion  which 
the  modern  educator  is  now  reaching. 

Senatorial  Investigation  of  18 j/. 

After  a  period  of  four  years  had  elapsed,  a  second  and 
more  successful  attempt  was  made  to  investigate  the  condi- 
tion of  child  labor  in  factories.  The  subject  first  came  up 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  Mr.  Reed  of  Phila- 
delphia moved  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  which 
should  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  passing  a  law  regu- 
lating the  age  at  which  children  might  be  employed  in  any 
trade  or  business  in  this  commonwealth.  This  motion  was 
promptly  negatived  when  it  came  up  for  second  reading, 
and  despite  various  petitions  in  favor  of  such  a  measure  the 
House  gave  itself  no  further  concern  in  the  matter,  leaving 
to  the  Senate  the  honor  of  taking  the  initiatiA^e  in  securing 
the  information  necessary  to  intelligent  factory  legislation. 
Numerous  petitions  having  been  received  by  the  Senate  and 
referred  to  a  select  committee,  consisting  of  Messrs.  Peltz, 
Darragh,  Rogers,  Penrose  and  Fullerton,  that  committee, 
on  the  last  day  of  March,  1837,  submitted  a  lengthy  report 
to  the  Senate. 

The  report  begins  by  asserting  that  the  committee 
believes  "that  the  subject  is  one  which  demands  the  serious 
attention  of  the  Legislature ;    they  regard  it  as  a  matter  not 


8  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvatnia^ 

only  affecting  some  of  the  most  important  interests  of  the 
community,  but  involving  the  character  and  happiness  of  a 
large  portion  of  our  people."  Then  follows  this  timely  sug- 
gestion :  "Notwithstanding  the  rapid  rise  and  progress  of 
the  manufacturing  system,  and  more  particulnrly  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  it  is  still  to  be  regardev..  as  in  its 
infancy;  and  the  effect  of  legislative  action  on  the  system 
will  be  rendered  more  salutary,  and  less  liable  to  produce 
injury,  at  the  present  than  at  a  future  time.  Whatever 
regulations  may  be  established  by  law,  should  be  enforced 
without  unnecessary  delay,  that  they  may  grow  up  with  and 
become  a  part  of  the  system  itself,  instead  of  being  intro- 
duced hereafter  as  matters  of  reform."  The  report  then 
dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  status  of  factory  legislation  in 
England,  and  the  struggle  that  was  being  waged  there  in 
behalf  of  the  factory  children — whose  condition,  the  com- 
mittee believed,  was  worse  than  that  of  American  factory 
children. 

It  was  then  pointed  out  that  the  reduction  of  hours  of 
labor  in  England  had  resulted  neither  in  lessened  produc- 
tion nor  in  lowering  of  wages,  but  precisely  the  opposite; 
and  the  committee  "feel  warranted  in  the  conclusion  that 
the  same  kind  of  action  here  would  be  attended  with  happy 
results."  But  in  order  that  the  Legislature  might  act  intelli- 
gently on  the  subject  it  ought  to  be  in  possession  of  the  most 
reliable  data,  gathered  by  its  own  members  at  first  hand. 
The  Senate  was  evidently  of  the  same  opinion,  for  it  at  once 
"Resolved,  That  the  committee  [before  enumerated]  be 
authorized  to  visit  the  cities  of  Pittsburg  and  Philadelphia, 
and  such  other  manufacturing  districts  of  the  state  as  they 
may  think  necessary,  during  the  recess  of  the  Legislature, 
for  the  purpose  of  investigating  and  inquiring  into  the  sys- 
tem of  labor  adopted  in  cotton  and  other  factories,  and  par- 
ticularly with  reference  to  children  employed  in  such  manu- 
factories, and  to  report  thereon  at  an  early  period  of  the 
next  session  of  the  Lesfislature." 


Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-184/).  9 

In  pursuance  of  this  resolution  of  the  Senate,  the  com- 
mittee met  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia  on  the  9th  of  May, 
and  proceeded  to  investigate  the  subject  in  the  following 
manner :  "Subpoenas  were  issued,  directed  to  operatives, 
machinists,  foremen,  or  bosses,  owners  of  factories,  and  in 
some  instances  to  the  parents  of  children  employed,  to 
physicians,  teachers  and  citizens  residing  in  the  vicinity  of 
manufactories,  and  in  manufacturing  towns." 

The  following  questions  were  put  to  these  witnesses : 

1.  What  are  your  opportunities  of  knowledge  of  the 
factory  system? 

2.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  evil  existing  as  it 
is  practiced  in  Pennsylvania;  if  3^ea,  state  what  the  evil  is, 
and     .     .     .     the  appropriate  remedy. 

3.  Are  you  engaged  in  business,  and  how? 

4.  If  yea,  state  what  is  the  extent  of  your  factory,  its 
nature,  power  used,  persons  employed,  their  ages  and  sex. 

5.  What  are  your  hours  of  work? 

6.  What  time  is  allowed  for  meals? 

7.  Is  the  labor  for  children  excessive? 

8.  Is  that  labor  done  sitting  or  standing? 

9.  Do  they  appear  tired  when  they  leave  work,  or  com- 
plain of  pain  from  overwork? 

10.  Do  the  boys  and  girls  work  together? 

11.  Do  they  use  the  same  water-closets,  or  is  any  care 
taken  to  keep  them  apart? 

12.  Is  any  attention  paid  to  their  education  or  morals? 

13.  Is  any  punishment  inflicted  on  them,  what,  and 
who  by? 

14.  Is  any  attention  paid  to  the  personal  cleanliness  of 
the  children  employed? 

15.  Are  children  more  healthy  when  they  first  come  to 
the  factory  than  after  they  have  been  some  time  in  the  mill? 
State  any  knowledge  you  may  have  of  the  effect  of  the  Avork 
of  children  in  the  factory  on  their  health. 

16.  Would  it  be  desirable  to  abrido:e  the  hours  of  labor 


lo  Factory  Legislation  in  Pcnnsyhwiia. 

in  factories;  to  exclude  children  under,  say,  twelve  years, 
and  require  that  children  should  not  be  employed  until  they 
can  read  and  write?  What  would  be  the  effect  of  any  or 
all  of  these  provisions  on  the  business  and  on  the  com- 
munity? 

17.  What  are  the  means  employed  to  ventilate  your 
factory  ? 

18.  What  is  the  degree  of  heat  at  which  the  tempera- 
ture of  the  factory  is  kept  in  the  winter  season? 

19.  Have  you  ever  known  a  contagious  disease  to  occur 
among  persons  employed  in  factories? 

20-21-22.  The  remaining  three  questions  had  to  do  with 
the  progress  and  condition  of  the  factory  system,  e.  g.,  the 
number  and  kind  of  factories,  the  motive  power  used,  the 
number  of  employees,  the  amount  of  capital  invested,  and 
the  effect  of  the  compromise  act  of  1833  on  the  manufac- 
turing interests.  And  these  might  better  have  been  omitted, 
for  the  replies  were  so  evasive  and  fragmentary  in  the  few 
instances  where  any  answer  at  all  was  vouchsafed,  as  to 
make  the  results  utterly  valueless. 

After  sitting  for  several  weeks  in  Philadelphia  and 
Manayunk,  the  committee  adjourned  its  sessions  to  Pitts- 
burg, where  it  remained  from  the  20th  to  the  30th  of  June, 
making  forty-two  days  in  all. 

On  the  7th  of  the  following  February  (1838)  the 
report  of  this  Senatorial  Investigating  Committee  was  read 
in  the  Senate.  As  this  is  the  only  legislative  investigation 
of  factory  conditions  in  Pennsylvania,  it  deserves  some 
attention.^ 

In  nearly  every  instance  the  testimony  was  given  on 
oath  or  affirmation,  and  the  results  of  the  inquiries  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows : 

Of  the  hands  employed  in  cotton  mills  (where  the  con- 
ditions of  labor  seem  to  have  been  hardest)  the  proportion 

*A  copy  may  be  found  in  the  Philadelphia  Law  Library,  City  Hall. 


Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-184'/).  11 

as  to  age  was :  under  twelve  years  of  age,  one-fifth  of 
whole  number  employed;  under  ten  years  of  age,  perhaps 
one-twentieth  of  whole  number  employed.  As  to  sex  :  males, 
one-third ;  females,  two-thirds,  this  proportion  holding  good 
whatever  the  age.  As  to  hours  of  labor :  there  was  no  uni- 
formity throughout  the  state,  especially  in  cotton  mills,  the 
hours  of  actual  labor  per  day  averaging  eleven  in  some  estab- 
lishments, twelve  in  others  (this  being  the  general  average), 
and  in  rare  instances  fourteen;  "the  humanity  or  cupidity 
of  employers  being  the  only  motive  by  which  it  is  regu- 
lated." In  summer  the  working  time  was  from  daylight 
(usually  5  a.  m.)  till  dark  (7  to  7.30  p.  m.),  with  inter- 
vals of  thirty  minutes  for  breakfast  and  forty-five  minutes 
for  dinner;  the  operatives  getting  their  supper  after  their 
return  home  at  night,  seldom  before  8  p.  m.,  when  the 
younger  children  were  often  too  exhausted  to  eat  and  would 
fall  asleep  the  minute  they  reached  home.  In  winter  the 
working  time  was  from  daylight  (6.30  to  7  a.  m.)  till  8  or 
8.30  p.  m.,  with  same  intervals  for  meals. 

The  so-called  working  week  averaged  seventy-two 
hours,  but  as  the  custom  was  general  to  close  three  hours 
earlier  on  Saturday,  except  in  the  busiest  seasons,  the  more 
liberal  employers  would  give  those  three  hours  to  their 
employees,  thus  reducing  the  number  of  hours  per  week  to 
sixty-nine,  while  the  majority  of  employers  compelled  a 
little  overtime  on  other  days  from  the  workers  to  make  up 
for  Saturday. 

In  a  few  factories,  according  to  the  testimony  given, 
eighty-four  hours  per  week  was  exacted,  but  no  specific 
instance  was  cited  and  the  allegation  seems  unreasonable, 
except  for  specially  busy  seasons.  The  factories  were 
lighted  for  night  work  during  five  or  six  months  in  the 
year,  but  never  for  early  morning  work,  which  began  after 
daylight. 

There  seemed  to  be  a  concensus  of  opinion,  one  or  two 
factory  owners  excepted,  that  the  labor  for  children  was 


12  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

excessive,  both  on  account  of  the  number  of  hours,  the 
vitiated  atmosphere,  and  the  weariness  resulting  from  con- 
stant walking  or  standing,  sitting  being  rarely  possible  from 
the  nature  of  the  work.  The  strain  on  eyes  and  nerves  alike 
was  very  great,  and  when  long  continued  could  not  but 
result  detrimentally  to  growing  boys  and  girls.  The  chil- 
dren rarely  complained  of  any  pain  and  it  was  seldom  that 
their  health  entirely  broke  down,  but  they  soon  came  to  look 
pale  and  less  robust  than  children  not  so  strictly  confined 
within  doors.  The  female  employees  seem  to  have  been 
more  often  broken  down  in  health  by  factory  labor  than 
were  the  males.  Contagious  diseases  were  almost  unknown 
in  the  factories,  except  tuberculosis,  which  frequently  de- 
veloped in  those  who  had  entered  the  factory  in  early  youth. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  one  Dr.  Callahan — a 
physician  and  surgeon  of  tw^enty  years'  practice,  seven  years 
among  the  manufacturing  population  of  Glasgow,  Scotland, 
and  thirteen  years  among  the  manufacturing  population  of 
Pittsburg — the  health  of  children  was  most  seriously  im- 
paired by  their  labor,  especially  in  cotton  factories.  His 
conclusion  was  that  children  placed  in  a  factory  at  an  early 
age  never  acquired  that  buoyanc)^  and  hilarity  of  spirits 
common  to  children  of  their  age.  "They  are  early  attacked 
with  rickets  and  other  diseases  of  the  bones.     .  .     Dis- 

eases of  a  scrofulous  character  overrun  all  classes  of  persons 
employed  in  factory  labor,  and  particularly  children.  .  .  . 
Tubercular  consumption  has,  of  late  years,  fearfully  in- 
creased among  this  community,  and  as  we  go  on  increasing 
our  manufactories,  this  species  of  disease  will  also  increase; 
it  is  a  sure  concomitant  of  factory  labor,  factory  dress,  fac- 
tory diet,  and  of  a  factory  atmosphere.  .  .  .  From  the 
ill-clothed  and  dirty  condition  of  the  children  of  factories, 
cutaneous  diseases  are  frequent  and  unmanageable,  as  it  is 
impossible  to  remove  the  causes  from  which  they  originate." 

Dr.  Callahan's  belief  was  that  no  child  should  be 
allowed  to  work  in  a  factory  until  it  had  attained  the  age 


Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-1847).  13 

of  fourteen  years,  and  then  should  not  be  employed  for  more 
than  six  hours  a  day. 

Dr.  Thomas  Foster,  a  graduate  of  Jefferson  Medical 
College  and  a  practicing  physician  in  Pittsburg,  had  not 
observed  anything  peculiar  about  the  diseases  of  factory 
children,  though  he  considered  the  long  hours  of  labor  and 
the  vitiated  atmosphere  of  the  factories  prejudicial  to  the 
health  of  the  children.  He  had  attended  many  of  the  chil- 
dren w^ho  were  injured  by  the  machinery,  most  of  these 
injuries  arising  from  the  children  getting  their  fingers  and 
hands  caught  in  the  cards,  some  of  the  sufferers  being  under 
twelve  years  of  age  and  nearly  all  under  sixteen  years. 

There  was  perfect  unanimity  among  those  who  testi- 
fied that  no  attention  whatever  was  paid  by  the  employers 
to  the  personal  cleanliness  of  the  children  employed,  that 
matter  being  left  wholly  to  the  parents ;  and  the  same  as  to 
their  education,  though  one  factory  owner  naively  remarked 
that  he  desired  his  child  employees  to  attend  Sunday  school, 
and  that  they  might  receive  education  evenings  if  they 
chose.  The  heartlessness  of  the  latter  suggestion  is  ap- 
parent, when  we  consider  how  utterly  exhausted  young 
workers  found  themselves  at  the  close  of  their  twelve  or 
thirteen  hours  of  toil. 

More  or  less  profanity  and  obscenity  seems  to  have 
prevailed  among  the  boys,  though  it  was  sternly  repressed 
by  the  overseers  whenever  it  came  to  their  ears.  But  no 
corporal  punishment  seems  to  have  been  inflicted  for  any 
offense  other  than  carelessness  and  inattention;  and  such 
chastisement  generally  consisted  of  a  box  on  the  ear,  or  a 
few  blows  with  a  strap,  b}^  the  overseer.  This  was  rarely 
excessive,  most  bosses  preferring  simply  to  discharge  the 
offender  after  sufficient  warning.  Once  discharged,  for 
whatever  cause,  it  was  very  difficult  to  obtain  re-employment 
in  the  same  neighborhood  so  long  as  the  previous  employer 
refused  to  give  his  workman  a  certificate  of  honorable  dis- 
missal.    Most  factories  made  it  a  custom  to  keep  back  one 


14  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

or  two  (usually  two)  weeks'  wages,  which  were  retained 
by  the  employers  in  case  an  employee  left  without  giving 
two  weeks'  notice;  but  the  rule  was  not  allowed  to  work 
the  other  way,  discharges  without  previous  notice  being 
customary,  either  for  inattention,  carelessness,  or  participa- 
tion in  meetings  called  in  the  interest  of  factory  legislation. 
If  a  workman  was  five  minutes  late  in  the  morning  he  was 
usually  dopked  one-quarter  of  that  day's  wages. 

In  most  instances  there  were  separate  water-closets  pro- 
vided for  boys  and  girls,  but  sometimes  separated  only  by  a 
board  partition. 

The  testimony  throughout  goes  to  show  that  the  morals 
of  the  operatives  in  the  textile  factories  were  as  pure  as 
prevailed  outside,  but  that  quite  the  reverse  was  the  condi- 
tion among  the  iron  and  steel  workers,  many  of  whom  were 
drunken,  vicious  and  immoral.  Of  all  those  under  eighteen 
years  of  age  employed  in  the  cotton  mills,  not  more  than 
one-third  could  either  read  or  write,  this  being  "an  effect  of 
their  early  employment  in  factories,  and  the  total  neglect 
of  their  education  afterwards."  Superintendents  and  fax:tory 
owners  had  deprecated  the  practice  of  employing  children 
under  twelve  years  of  age  before  they  had  secured  the  rudi- 
ments of  an  education  and  while  they  were  still  too  young 
and  weak  to  be  of  much  assistance  in  a  factory;  yet  these 
same  witnesses  had  several  times  expressed  their  fear  that 
any  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor,  or  the  prohibition  of 
child  labor,  so  long  as  it  could  apply  only  to  Pennsylvania, 
must  result  disastrously  to  the  manufacturers  in  their  com- 
petition with  others  not  similarly  restricted.  This  appre- 
hension of  the  manufacturers  the  committee  regarded  as  ex- 
aggerated. 

"It  is  true,"  they  say,  "that  our  manufacturers  have  to 
compete  with  those  in  other  states  engaged  in  the  same  busi- 
ness, where,  perhaps,  no  such  system  may  be  adopted ;  but, 
if  such  enactments  here  are  associated  with  enactments  to 
secure  the  benefits  of  education  in  the  elementary  branches 


Efforts  Tozvard  Legislation  (1824-184'/).  15 

essential  to  make  good  citizens,  while  they  will  guard 
against  what  may  become  revolting  tyranny,  they  will  secure 
the  benevolent  .  .  .  against  competition  of  men  in  the 
same  business  in  this  state,  of  less  humanity,  who  are  re- 
strained by  no  feeling  from  requiring  excessive  labor  from 
the  children  employed ;  and,  besides,  although  the  time  of 
labor  may  be  restricted,  the  operatives  who  are  not  over- 
worked will  work  with  greater  activity  and  zeal,  and,  being 
in  a  degree  educated,  with  greater  intelligence  and  cheerful- 
ness; circumstances  will  counterbalance  the  effect  of  the 
restriction,  and  perhaps  fully  compensate  for  it.  But,  at  all 
events,  the  committee  are  satisfied  that  in  a  republic,  where 
so  much  depends  upon  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the 
people,  it  is  far  better  that  we  should  forego  pecuniary 
advantages,  rather  than  permit  large  masses  of  children  to 
become  the  miserable  victims  of  an  oppressive  system,  and 
to  grow  up  in  ignorance  and  vice,  alike  disgraceful  to  them- 
selves and  dangerous  to  the  community." 

The  committee  then  assert  that  "The  testimony  further 
shows  that  the  labor  of  children  under  twelve  years  of  age, 
in  factories,  is  not  desirable  or  profitable;  and  that  no  injury 
would  result  to  employers  by  the  enactment  of  a  law  to 
prohibit  the  employment  of  all  children  under  that  age.  The 
reason  alleged  by  them  [the  manufacturers]  for  the  employ- 
ment of  younger  children  is  that  they  are  forced  on  them 
by  poor,  and  in  many  instances  by  worthless,  parents.  In- 
stances are  related  of  parents  who  have  taken  little  children, 
under  seven  years  of  age,  from  factory  to  factory,  and 
begged  employment  for  them.  .  .  .  children  have 
sometimes  been  kept  in  the  factories  without  ever  having 
been  sent  to  school  for  a  single  hour,  and  their  hard  earn- 
ings appropriated  by  their  unnatural  parents,  as  long  as  they 
can  legally  control  them.     .     .     . 

"The  owners  of  mills  are  not  always  the  employers  of 
children.  The  mule  spinners  are  frequently  paid  by  the 
piece  for  their  work,  and  are  required  to  continue  at  it  while 


1 6  Factory  Legislation  iii  Pennsylvania. 

the  machinery  runs,  and  to  furnish  their  own  assistants, 
who  are  called  piecers.  The  labor  of  piecing  is  not  severe, 
but  the  children  are  kept  on  their  feet  during  the  whole 
time,  and  are  actively  engaged.  Whether  employed  by 
master  or  journeyman,  the  only  interest  felt  for  the  child 
is  to  get  its  labor — between  parent  and  employer  the  child 
can  have  no  indulgence,  the  rules  of  the  factory  must  be 
obeyed.     .     .     . 

"It  may  be  asked.  Why  confine  this  inquiry  exclusively 
to  manufactories,  and  not  extend  it  to  business  of  other 
kinds  ?  The  answer  is  that  in  most  occupations  the  appren- 
ticing system  prevails.  In  our  factories  there  is  no  such 
thing:  no  indenture  is  executed  to  secure  to  the  child  its 
trade;  no  provision  is  made  for  its  education.  This  defi- 
ciency is  peculiar  to  the  factory  system  alone,  and  here  is 
the  point  where  legislative  interposition  seems  to  be  neces- 
sary." 

This  statement  that  the  apprentice  system  was  un- 
known in  Pennsylvania  factories,  though  exaggerated, 
serves  to  point  out  one  of  the  main  differences  between  the 
English  problem  and  ours,  at  the  beginning  of  the  factory 
legislation  in  the  two  countries. 

The  committee  submitted  a  bill  to  the  Senate  con- 
taining such  provisions  as  they  thought  might  be  safely 
adopted. 

1.  That  no  child  under  ten  years  of  age  should  be 
employed  in  any  factory. 

2.  That  factory  children  not  sufficiently  well  educated 
to  read  and  write  and  keep  an  account  should  be  sent  to 
school  for  at  least  three  months  in  each  and  every  year  while 
so  employed. 

3.  That  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  should  not 
be  allowed  to  labor  more  than  ten  hours  a  day. 

As  this  report  came  at  a  most  inopportune  time,  right 
upon  the  financial  crash  of  1837  when  more  than  half  the 
mills  were  idle  and  most  of  the  remainder  running  on  half- 


Efforts  Toward  Legislation  (1824-1847).  17 

time,  it  failed  to  produce  the  anticipated  result.  The  bill 
was  given  but  one  reading,  and  another  decade  had  to  go  by 
before  relief  could  come  to  factory  children. 

Although  this  question  of  legislating  for  the  "health 
and  morals"  of  the  young  factory  workers  was  under  con- 
sideration in  1838,  1844  and  1847,  "o  action  was  taken 
until  1848.  Four  of  the  New  England  states — Massachu- 
setts, 1836;  Connecticut,  1842;  New  Hampshire,  1846; 
Maine,  1847 — preceded  Pennsylvania  in  this  field  of  legis- 
lative action.  But  these  commonwealths,  as  well  as  Penn- 
sylvania, were  only  following  the  lead  of  England,  where 
the  struggle  of  humanity  against  greed  was  then  being 
waged  so  valiantly  by  Lord  Ashley,  better  known  as  Lord 
Shaftesbury,  who  had  taken  the  place  of  Mr.  Sadler  as 
leader  of  the  ten-hour  movement  when  the  latter  failed  of 
re-election  to  the  first  reform  Parliament.  (See  Appen- 
dix.) 


CHAPTER  II. 

Early  Child  Labor  Laws  (1848-1855). 

Act  of  1848. 

On  January  nth  there  \\2.s  presented  to  the  Llouse  a 
petition,  with  thirty-five  hundred  signatures/  praying  for 
the  passage  of  a  ten-hour  law  which  should  operate  regard- 
less of  special  contracts  to  the  contrary,  and  for  the  fixing 
of  the  minimum  age  of  child  labor  in  factories.  This  petition 
was  followed  by  others  of  t!ie  same  nature.  On  the  19th, 
Captain  SmalP  introduced  a  bill  entitled  "An  act  to  prevent 
the  employment  in  factories  of  children  under  twelve  years 
of  age."  Three  days  later  a  motion  was  made,  apparently 
intended  to  delay  action,  providing  for  the  appointment  by 
the  two  houses  of  a  joint  committee  of  inquiry  which  should 
"visit  some  of  the  manufacturing  establishments  within  this 
commonwealth,"  investigating  especially  the  condition  of 
the  children  employed.  This  motion  would  seem  to  have 
been  superfluous,  for  factory  life  had  not  materially  changed 
since  the  Senate  investigation  of  a  decade  before.  It  was 
very  properly  negatived.  Encouraged  by  numerous  favor- 
ing petitions,  the  committee  in  charge  promptly  reported 
Captain  Small's  bill  with  a  few  amendments.  In  the  dis- 
cussion which  followed,  the  opponents  of  the  bill  maintained 
that  manufacturers  were  already  embarrassed  by  the  tariff 
of  1846,  and  that  if  an  act  were  passed  imposing  special 
l>urdens  on  Pennsylvania  manufacturers,  Philadelphia  fac- 
tories would  be  driven  over  into  Camden. 

'The  daily  papers  of  the  time  make  no  comment  on  this  petition, 
and  we  are  left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  forces  back  of  it. 

*A  Democratic  member  from  Philadelphia,  who  had  served  in  the 
Mexican  War. 


(18) 


Early  Child  Labor  Lartvs  (1848-1855).  19 

After  some  further  alterations  by  the  Senate,  the  most 
important  of  which  was  the  proviso  allowing  more  than  ten 
hours  work  for  minors,  by  special  contract,  the  bill  was 
passed  February  24th.  A  month  later,  March  27th^  it 
received  a  favorable  vote  of  54  to  9  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, becoming  a  law  in  precisely  the  form  in  which 
it  came  from  the  Senate. 

This  act  of  1848^  forbade  the  employment  of  any  minor 
under  twelve  years  of  age  in  any  cotton,  woolen,  silk  or  flax 
factory,  under  penalty  of  $50,  one-half  of  which  would  go 
to  the  party  so  employed  and  the  other  half  to  the  common- 
wealth ;  and  established  a  legal  working  day  of  ten  hours  in 
all  cotton,  woolen,  silk,  paper,  bagging  and  flax  factories, 
with  the  proviso  that  minors  above  the  age  of  fourteen 
might  be  employed  more  than  ten  hours  a  day  by  special 
contract  with  their  parents  or  guardians."*  This  proviso  was 
the  work  of  a  Mr.  Johnston,  who  had  first  proposed  the 
amendment,  "Nor  shall  any  contract  stipulating  for  more 
than  ten  hours  labor  in  twenty- four  be  binding  or  valid 
before  any  court  of  this  commonwealth,"  which  was  to 
apply  to  persons  of  all  ages.  This  motion  being  lost,  he 
offered  a  second  amendment  which  became  the  proviso 
included  in  the  act,  because  he  did  not  wish  children  to  be 
put  on  a  different  footing  from  adults. 

That  Mr.  Johnston's  former  amendment  was  according 
to  the  wishes  and  expectations  of  a  large  number  of  the 
working  people  of  the  state  is  evident  both  from  the  nature 
of  the  petitions  before  referred  to  and  from  the  disturbances 
which  followed  the  passage  of  the  act.     When  the  manu- 

^P.  L.  No.  227,  p.  278.  As  there  are  no  factory  statistics  for  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  showing  the  number  of  children  employed  prior 
to  the  organization  of  the  Department  of  Factory  Inspection  in  1889, 
it  is  impossible  to  state  the  number  of  persons  affected  by  this  act  or 
by  the  acts  of  1849  and  1855. 

*This  last  clause  would  seem  to  imply  that  the  employment  of 
children  between  the  ages  of  12  and  14  years  for  more  than  ten  hours 
was  prohibited. 


20  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

facturers  refused  to  adopt  the  legal  working  day  set  forth 
in  the  act,  various  strikes  occurred,  especially  in  the  vicinity 
of  Philadelphia  and  of  Pittsburg.  The  operatives  working  in 
and  near  Philadelphia  continued  to  work  as  before,  from 
5  a.  m.  to  6  p.  m.,  until  July  4th,  when  there  occurred  a 
number  of  strikes,  the  results  of  which  were  that  "some  shut 
down,  others  reduced  their  wages  one-sixth  and  run  ten 
hours,  and  another  portion  continued  as  usual,  having 
entered  into  special  contracts  with  their  operatives  to  work 
the  time  required  of  them  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  ten- 
hour  law."^  But  the  seven  cotton  factories  of  Allegheny 
City  stopped  work  on  July  4th,  on  the  ground  that  they 
could  not  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  ten-hour  law. 
On  August  28th  the  factories  resumed  work  with  their  old 
employees,  under  the  ten-hour  plan,  but  with  an  abate- 
ment of  sixteen  per  cent  in  the  wages  of  the  employees. 
Some  rioting  occurred  while  the  strike  was  in  progress, 
directed  against  a  few  mills  that  ventured  to  start  up  on  the 
old-time  system. 

Act  of  18 4Q. 

In  1849  Governor  Johnston  asked  the  Legislature  in 
his  annual  message  to  repeal  the  proviso  which  he  himself, 
as  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  had  suggested  the  previous 
year;  and  in  accordance  with  this  request  Captain  Small 
introduced  such  an  amendatory  bill,  which  was  supported 
by  numerous  petitions,  and  passed  by  the  Senate  about  the 
middle  of  March. 

Meanwhile,  two  separate  bills  had  been  presented  to 
the  House,  but  neither  of  them  reached  a  second  reading, 

"For  accounts  of  these  Pennsylvania  labor  troubles  of  1848,  and  com- 
ments on  the  same,  see  Report  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics  for  1881-2. 
pp.  102-3.  See  editorial  in  the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger  for  January 
19,  1849,  headed:  "The  Trial  of  the  Factory  Girls  of  Pittsburg  has 
begun."  Also,  editorial  in  the  Pennsylvanian  (a  Philadelphia  daily 
paper)   for  February  13,  1849,  on  "The  Insolence  of  Capital." 


Early  Child  Labor  Laws  (1848- 1855).  21 

nor  did  the  House  consider  the  Senate  bill.  Nevertheless, 
the  day  before  the  session  was  to  close  a  curious  action  was 
taken  by  the  Legislature.  The  Senate  made  certain  amend- 
ments to  a  House  bill  entitled  "An  act  for  the  relief  of  the 
heirs  of  James  Caldwell,  deceased."  When  these  were  read 
in  the  House  a  motion  was  made  and  carried  further  to 
amend  by  adding  five  sections  relating  wholly  to  factories ; 
and  on  the  following  day  the  Senate  concurred  in  the  amend- 
ments. 

This  act  of  1849,*^  which  repealed  the  preceding  act, 
raised  the  minimum  age  of  child  labor  from  twelve  to  thir- 
teen years  ;'^  extended  the  prohibition  of  such  labor  so  as  to 
include  cotton,  woolen,  silk,  paper,  bagging  and  flax  fac- 
tories;^ advanced  the  maximum  limit  of  protected  persons 
— those  who  might  work  only  ten  hours  a  day — from  four- 
teen to  sixteen  years;  and,  lastly,  forbade  the  employment 
for  more  than  nine  calendar  months  of  any  protected  per- 
sons who  had  not  attended  school  for  at  least  three  con- 
secutive months  within  the  same  year. 

Any  parent  or  guardian  who  should  permit  or  connive 
at  the  employment  of  his  or  her  child  or  ward  under  the 
age  of  thirteen  years,  in  any  of  the  aforesaid  factories, 
or  any  employer  who  should  wilfully  or  knowingly  employ 
such  minor,  should  be  liable  for  each  offense  to  a  penalty 
of  $50,  recoverable  like  ordinary  debts  by  any  person  who 
might  choose  to  sue  for  the  same,  one-half  the  fine  to  go 
to  the  person  suing,  and  the  other  half  to  the  county  where 
the  offense  was  committed.  Parents  or  guardians,  only, 
were  to  be  liable  for  allowing  the  employment  of  protected 
persons  for  more  than  ten  hours;  and  employers,  only,  for 
failure  to  compl}^  with  the  school  regulation ;  the  penalty 

'P.  L.  No.  415,  p.  672. 

'Where  it  remained  for  nearly  forty  years,  being  again  lowered  to 
twelve  by  act  of  1887  and  returned  to  thirteen  by  act  of  1893. 

'Paper  and  bagging  had  not  been  included  in  the  corresponding 
clause  of  act  of  1848. 


22  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania'. 

in  each  case  to  be  the  same  as  before,  and  recovered  and 
applied  in  the  same  manner. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  neither  of  these  acts,  of  1848  or 
1849,  was  so  drawn  as  to  render  its  enforcement  Hkely  under 
ordinary  circumstances.  Laws  whose  enforcement  is  left 
to  the  initiative  of  private  citizens  are  almost  always  worth- 
less, and  all  the  earlier  factory  legislation  for  Pennsylvania 
falls  within  this  category. 


After  two  unsuccessful  attempts  had  been  made  to  sup- 
plement the  act  of  1849,  the  matter  was  again  brought 
before  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1855  through  a 
bill  substantially  identical  with  one  which  had  passed  that 
body  the  year  before.  Many  favoring  petitions  were  re- 
ceived, and  after  several  amendments — the  most  important 
of  which  were  to  render  the  employer  liable  only  when  he 
had  "knowingly"  offended,  and  to  limit  the  enforcement 
duty  of  the  constables  to  those  cases  where  complaint  had 
been  duly  made — the  bill  passed  the  House.  During  the 
discussion  a  statement  was  made,  the  reliability  of  which 
is  problematical,  to  the  effect  that  there  were  19,000  minors 
then  employed  in  the  cotton  and  woolen  factories  of  the 
state,  of  whom  11,000  were  females. 

On  reaching  the  Senate  the  bill  was  very  peculiarly 
modified  by  the  committee  to  which  it  was  referred.  Besides 
reducing  the  maximum  penalty  from  $100  to  $50,  and  the 
minimum  penalty  from  $50  to  $10,  a  section  was  added 
making  it  "the  duty  of  the  owners  or  managers  of  any 
manufactory  described  in  the  first  section  of  this  act  to  con- 
tribute $2  per  annum  for  the  first  year,  and  thereafter  $1,  for 
each  operative  that  such  manufactory  is  designed  to  employ, 
for  every  year  while  the  same  shall  be  in  operation ;  for  the 
maintenance  of  one  or  more  reading  and  lecture  rooms,  and 
the  supplying  them  with  books  and  periodical  literature  of  a 


Early  Child  Labor  Laws  ( 1848-1855).  23 

useful,  entertaining  and  instructive  description,  which  shall 
be  kept  open  and  accessible  from  the  hours  of  2  to  9  o'clock 
p.  m.  on  Saturdays,  and  from  7  to  9  o'clock  on  all  other 
evenings  of  the  week  throughout  the  year,  and,  when  neces- 
sary, lighted  and  heated,  for  the  free  and  gratuitous  use  of 
the  operatives.  ,  .  ."  As  an  inducement  to  the  per- 
formance of  this  "duty,"  any  manufacturer  who  supplied  a 
free  library  of  the  above  description  might  work  the  minors 
in  his  employ  for  sixty-six  hours  per  week  instead  of  sixty! 
This  library  attachment  was  speedily  removed  by  the  Senate, 
though  the  reduction  of  penalty  was  retained;  and  after 
some  further  alterations,  which  were  accepted  by  the  House, 
the  bill  became  a  law.^  The  statute  applied  to  the  same 
factories  as  did  the  act  of  1849.  No  person  under  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  (instead  of  sixteen)  might  work  more 
than  sixty  hours  per  week,  "or  an  average  of  ten  hours 
per  day."^^  The  responsibility  of  the  protection  still  rested 
mainly  on  the  parent  or  guardian,  who  was  liable  to  a  fine 
of  from  $10  to  $50  for  permitting  overwork;  while  the 
employer  must  have  knowingly  offended  to  be  liable  for 
the  same  penalty.  Fines  were  recoverable  by  suit  brought 
before  any  alderman  or  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  proper 
ward,  borough  or  district,  and  were  to  be  applied  to  the  use 
of  the  public  schools  of  the  district.  Suit  must  be  brought 
within  one  month,  and  no  person  might  sue  for  more  than 
one  penalty  for  the  working  of  any  factory  for  the  same 
period  of  time.  Constables  were  required  to  attend  strictly 
to  all  complaints  made  of  violations  of  the  law. 

The  hesitancy  with  which  the  Legislature  attempted 

°P.  L.  No.  501,  p.  472. 

^'This  was  much  weaker  than  the  corresponding  clauses  of  the  pre- 
ceding acts,  which  had  prohibited  the  employment  of  protected  persons 
for  more  than  ten  hours  in  any  secular  day.  By  placing  no  limit  on  a 
single  day's  labor,  unlimited  leeway  was  given  in  the  matter  of  making 
up  lost  time;  while  the  opportunity  was  afforded  of  employing  two 
shifts  of  children  in  busy  times,  by  working  each  shift  for  long  hours 
per  day  during  but  few  days  of  the  week. 


24  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

any  interference  with  the  rights  of  employers  is  shown  by 
their  unwillingness  to  allow  constables  to  enforce  the  act 
unless  complaint  had  been  made  of  its  violation.  It  was 
still  the  private  citizen  alone  who  could  bestir  himself  in  the 
matter.  The  result  was,  as  will  be  seen,  that  many  manu- 
facturers were  unaware  of  the  existence  of  such  a  law,  and 
it  remained  practically  a  dead  letter  for  a  period  of  thirty- 
five  years,  until  the  creation  of  a  department  of  factory 
inspection. 

The  writer  has  been  unable  to  find  any  record  of  cases 
arising  under  the  acts  of  1848,  1849  o^"  ^^SS- 


CHAPTER  III. 

FiRE-EscAPE  Legislation  (1879-1885.) 

Act  of  i8/p. 

The  factory  problem  was  now  allowed  to  drop  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  This  may  fairly  be  attributed  to  the 
Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  epoch,  which,  like  the  Na- 
poleonic wars  for  England,  put  a  check  on  economic  and 
social  legislation.  When  the  subject  reappears,  in  1878,  it 
has  taken  on  a  new  form,  that  of  compelling  the  erection 
of  fire-escapes  on  factories,  hotels  and  other  tall  buildings. 
Bills  on  this  subject  were  introduced  in  both  houses  at  about 
the  same  time,  and  the  Senate  bill  formed  the  groundwork 
of  the  act  passed  the  following  year. 

This  act  of  1879^  provided  as  follows:  "Section  i. 
Be  it  enacted,  etc..  That  all  the  following  described  build- 
ings within  this  commonwealth,  to  wit,  every  building  used 
as  a  seminary,  college,  academy,  hospital,  asylum,  or  a  hotel 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  public,  every  storehouse,  fac- 
tory, manufactory,  or  workshop  of  any  kind,  in  which  em- 
ployees, or  operatives  are  usually  employed  at  work  in  the 
third,  or  any  higher  story,  every  tenement  house  or  building 
in  which  rooms  or  floors  are  usually  let  to  lodgers  or  families, 
and  every  public  school  building,  when  any  of  such  buildings 
are  three  or  more  stories  in  height,  shall  be  provided  with  a 
permanent,  safe,  external  means  of  escape  therefrom  in  case 
of  fire ;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  owners  or  keepers  of 
such  hotels,  or  the  owners,  superintendents,  or  managers  of 
such  seminaries,  colleges,  academies,  hospitals,  asylums, 
storehouses,  factories,  manufactories,  or  workshops,  of  the 

'P.  L.  No.  132,  p.  128. 

(25) 


26  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

owners  or  landlords  of  such  tenement  houses,  or  their 
agents,  and  the  board  of  school  directors  of  the  proper 
school  districts,  to  provide  and  cause  to  be  affixed  to  every 
such  building-  such  permanent  fire-escape."  Section  2  made 
it  the  duty  of  the  board  of  fire  commissioners,  together  with 
the  fire  marshal  of  the  district,  "To  first  examine  and  test 
such  fire-escape,  and  after,  upon  trial,  said  fire-escape  should 
prove  satisfactory,  then  the  said  fire  marshal,  in  connection 
with  the  fire  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall 
grant  a  certificate  approving  said  fire-escape."  And  when 
no  such  fire  marshal  and  fire  commissioners  existed,  then 
the  school  directors  might  act  in  their  stead,  and  issue  the 
said  certificate.  Section  3  provided  a  liability  for  damages 
in  case  of  death  or  personal  injury  resulting  from  fire  where 
no  such  escapes  had  been  erected,  together  with  a  penalty, 
not  exceeding  $300,  for  non-compliance  with  the  act. 

Act  of  1883. 

After  two  unsuccessful  attempts  at  amendment  in  1881, 
a  third  and  successful  attempt  was  made  in  1883,  in  the 
form  of  a  supplemental  act  which  provided  that,  in  addition 
to  the  "permanent,  safe,  external  means  of  escape"  hitherto 
required,  a  chain  ten  feet  long  with  a  rope  attached  should 
be  fixed  to  the  inside  of  the  window  head  of  at  least  six 
windows  on  the  third  and  each  higher  floor  of  every  building 
amenable  to  the  act,  one  in  each  room  on  such  floors  in 
hotels.  The  rope  was  to  be  one  inch  or  more  in  thickness, 
to  reach  to  the  ground,  and  be  coiled  inside  the  sill  when 
not  in  use. 

Two  arguments  were  urged  in  support  of  this  measure : 
First,  that  access  to  the  one  general  escape  of  a  large  build- 
ing might  easily  be  cut  off  in  case  of  fire ;  and,  second,  that 
the  chain  and  rope  escape,  being  cheap,  w^ould  stand  more 
chance  of  being  adopted.  It  was  stated  in  the  debate  that 
the   Philadelphia  Times   had   recently   published    a   list   of 


Fire-Escape  Legislation  (i8yp-i88^).  27 

nearly  two  hundred  persons  owning  mill  buildings  and  other 
properties  to  which  the  escapes  should  have  been  applied 
under  the  act  passed  four  years  before,  who  had  failed  to 
comply  with  the  law.  The  speaker  seemed  to  feel  that, 
although  the  fire  commissioners  had  failed  to  enforce  the 
act  of  1879,  perhaps  if  a  cheaper  escape  were  provided  the 
authorities  might  be  bold  enough  to  compel  its  adoption. 

The  bill  was  amended  in  the  House  so  as  to  make  own- 
ers solely  responsible  for  the  erection  of  these  escapes — a 
most  important  change,  as  will  be  seen.  In  the  Senate  it 
was  still  further  amended  in  the  same  direction  by  adding 
a  section  giving  tenants  a  right,  after  thirty  days'  warning 
to  the  landlord,  to  erect  such  fire-escape  and  to  obtain  the 
cost  thereof  either  by  a  suit  for  debt  or  by  taking  it  out  of 
the  rent ;  and  in  this  form  it  passed  both  houses. 

The  senator  who  offered  the  last-mentioned  amend- 
ment said  he  was  prompted  to  do  so  by  the  recent  decision  in 
a  suit  against  the  owner  of  the  Landenberger  Mills,  where 
the  court  decided  that  the  "owner"  in  the  act  of  1879  meant 
the  occupier  of  the  premises.  And  he  trusted  that  this  last 
amendment  would  not  only  insure  the  erection  of  a  fire- 
escape,  but  would  also  show  where  the  responsibility  for  its 
erection  really  lay. 

Fire-Escape  Decisions  (188^-4). 

The  case  to  which  he  referred  is  known  as  that  of 
Moeller  vs.  Harvey,"^  of  which  the  facts  are  these:  Prior 
to  the  act  of  1879,  C.  H.  Landenberger,  as  agent  for  his 
wife,  leased  the  defendant's  mill.  The  lease  was  renewed 
by  C.  H.  Landenberger,  in  his  own  name,  before  its  expira- 
tion but  after  the  passage  of  the  act ;  and  he  remained  in 
continuous  possession  of  the  premises  down  to  the  time  of 
the  fire,  in  1881  (October  I2th).^ 

'Court  of  Common  Pleas.  No.  2,   Philadelphia.     Opinion  delivered 
February  15,  1883,  by  Hare,  P.  J.,  Philadelphia  Reports,  Vol  16,  p.  66. 
'Of  the  41  employees,  9  were  killed  and  16  severely  injured. 


28  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  jury  found  that  the  injury  to  the  plaintiff  resulted 
from  the  absence  of  a  fire-escape,  but  leave  was  reserved  to 
the  court  to  enter  judgment  for  the  defendant  if  it  was  of 
opinion  that  the  defendant  was  not  liable  as  owner. 

"The  case,"  said  Judge  Hare  in  rendering  his  decision, 
"turns  on  a  single  point.  What  is  the  word  'owner'  as  used 
in  the  act  of  June  ii,  1879?  Does  it  include  everyone  who 
has  a  right  of  property  in  the  premises  in  question,  or  only 
such  persons  as  have  a  right  of  possession  and  can  exercise 
an  actual  dominion  and  control  ?  The  term  is  broad  enough 
to  admit  of  both  interpretations."  The  judge  held  that 
both  in  legal  and  common  parlance  not  alone  are  they  own- 
ers "who  have  a  title  that  will  or  may  be  reduced  to  pos- 
session at  a  future  period,"  but  also  they  "who  are  in 
possession  by  virtue  of  an  existing  right,  however  brief. 
It  is  a  general  and  obvious  rule  that  an  ambiguous 
command,  which  may  appl}^  to  various  persons,  is  presum- 
ably addressed  to  those  who  can  and  not  to  those  who  can- 
not legally  comply  with  its  terms.  .  .  .  Is  it  the  lessor, 
who  has  not  hired  and  who  cannot  control  the  operatives, 
who  has  no  power  to  direct  where  they  shall  be  employed, 
who  cannot  cross  the  threshold  without  becoming  liable  as 
a  trespasser,  or  is  it  the  occupant  of  a  building  under  a  lease 
which  renders  him  as  absolutely  the  master  of  all  it  contains 
as  if  he  held  the  fee,  who  owns  the  machinery  and  fixtures 
and  engages  and  may  dismiss  the  workmen,  and  to  whom 
alone  it  belongs  to  say  whether  he  will  submit  to  the  loss 
incident  to  the  disuse  of  a  large  and  it  may  be  essential  part 
of  his  factory,  or  proceed  at  the  risk  of  being  liable  in 
damages  should  a  fire  occur? 

"In  answering  this  inquiry  it  is  material  to  observe  that 
the  keepers  of  hotels  and  superintendents  and  managers  of 
factories  are  grouped  in  the  same  clause  with  owners,  and 
made  equally  answerable  for  the  want  of  a  sufficient  means 
of  escape  from  fire.  Such  a  classification  indicates  that  what 
the  Legislature  had  in  view  was  not  ownership,  but  the 
authority  which  title  ordinarily  confers." 


Fire-Escapc  Legislation  (18/Q-1885).  29 

Judge  Hare  next  upheld  an  argument  which  had  been 
urged  at  the  trial,  namely,  that  a  law  rendering  a  man  liable 
for  damages  for  the  non-performance  of  an  act  which  he 
could  not  legally  perform  would  be  unconstitutional,  in  that 
it  would  be  "as  clearly  a  deprivation  without  due  process 
of  law  as  though  the  penalty  were  unconditional  or  the 
party  an  entire  stranger  in  estate.  The  just  inference,  how- 
ever, is  not  that  the  statute  is  unconstitutional,  but  that  it 
shall  be  so  read  as  to  be  consistent  with  the  principles  which 
the  constitution  embodies  and  was  designed  to  guard." 

The  remainder  of  the  decision  related  to  the  question 
whether  the  defendant,  by  renewing  the  lease,  could  "avoid 
the  responsibility  which  would  otherwise  devolve  upon  him 
at  the  expiration  of  the  existing  term."  This  point  the 
judge  decided  in  favor  of  the  defendant,  because,  if  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  tenant  to  affix  a  fire-escape  or  else  to  refrain 
from  using  the  upper  floors  of  a  building,  "it  could  not  be 
incumbent  on  the  landlord  to  re-enter  for  the  sake  of  occu- 
pying a  post  that  was  already  filled." 

Later  in  the  year  another  party  injured  at  this  fire 
brought  suit  against  the  owner,  Harvey;  and  the  case, 
Schott  vs.  Hai'vey^  having  been  decided  in  the  same  fashion 
as  the  one  just  described,  an  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme 
Court.^ 

Before  proceeding  to  this  decision — delivered  by  Mr. 
Justice  Paxson — it  may  be  well  to  consider  the  briefs  sub- 
mitted. To  the  lay  mind,  the  brief  of  the  plaintiff's  counsel 
seems  to  furnish  a  very  satisfactory  answer  to  some  of  the 
points  in  Judge  Hare's  decision.  "The  term  'owner'  as  used 
in  popular  parlance,  at  common  law,  in  judicial  decisions, 
and  in  legislative  enactments  of  this  state,  signifies  primarily 
and  in  the  absence  of  qualification,  the  owner  of  the  free- 

*Court  of  Common  Pleas,  No.  4,  Philadelphia,  July  term,  1883,  No. 
226  (not  reported). 

"Case  heard  January  29,  1884.  Opinion  delivered  February  25. 
Pennsylvania  State  Reports,  1884,  9  Outerbridge,  p.  222. 


30  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

hold.  In  order,  therefore,  to  restrict  its  meaning  in  an  act 
of  Assembly  to  a  tenant  for  years  or  'owner  of  a  term'  some 
clear  intention  must  appear  in  the  words  of  the  statute ;  but 
none  such  appears  in  this  act. 

"The  legislative  power  to  impose  such  duties  on  the 
owner  of  the  fee  cannot  be  questioned,  the  only  question  is 
the  legislative  intent.  The  legislative  object  was  protection 
of  life  in  case  of  fire;  the  intent  w^as  to  secure  that  object 
beyond  peradventure,  by  imposing  the  duty  on  the  'owners, 
superintendents,  or  managers.'  of  the  factory.     .     .     . 

"It  is  no  answer  for  the  landlord  to  say  that  his  act  in 
providing  the  fire-escape  might  be  a  trespass  or  eviction, 
nor  for  the  superintendent  or  manager  to  say  that  such  act 
is  not  permitted  by  the  lease,  or  not  within  the  scope  of  his 
employment. 

"There  are  many  cases  where  public  policy,  the  common 
law,  or  statutory  provisions  prescribe  or  sanction  interfer- 
ence with  private  rights  for  the  public  safety  or  welfare. 
Instances  may  be  found  in  the  police  and  sanitary  regula- 
tions, building  law^s,  the  right  to  enter  or  pull  down  build- 
ings to  prevent  the  spread  of  fire,  .  .  .  and  generally 
to  do  whatever  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  human 
life.  No  constitutional  inhibition  applies  to  such  cases.  The 
authority  of  the  statute  is  ample  justification^  for  such  sup- 
posed trespass." 

The  main  argument  advanced  by  the  counsel  for  the 
defendant  was  that  the  duty  was  a  "conditional  and  shifting 
one,  dependent  on  the  use  of  the  building  by  the  occupant ;" 
and  that  it  was  "reasonable  to  construe  the  word  'owners' 
as  'occupying  owners,'  who  could  at  their  option  cause  the 
duty  to  arise  or  to  cease,  by  the  character  of  their  occupa- 
tion.   Until  there  was  an  occupant  and  a  factory,  there  was 

'That  this  contention  was  sound  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the 
act  of  1885,  which  made  it  the  duty  of  the  "owner  or  owners  in  fee  or 
for  life"  to  erect  fire-escapes,  has  not,  as  predicted  by  Judge  Hare, 
been  declared  unconstitutional. 


Firc-Escapc  Legislaticnt  (1879-1885).  31 

no  duty  .  .  .  and  the  building  might  at  any  time  cease 
to  be  a  factory  by  the  tenant's  withdrawing  his  machinery 
and  operatives." 

In  his  analysis  of  the  case,  Judge  Paxson,  after  ex- 
pressing regret  that  a  statute  of  so  much  importance  should 
not  have  been  prepared  with  more  care,  pointed  out  that  the 
act  was  in  the  disjunctive,  the  duty  being  imposed  upon 
owners,  superintendents,  or  managers  of  factories,  etc. 
Whence  it  followed  that  a  more  reasonable  construction 
would  seem  to  be  that  it  was  not  intended  to  place  a  joint 
liability  upon  all,  but  to  reach  the  person  who  was  ''in  pos- 
session with  a  power  of  control,  whether  he  be  owner,  super- 
intendent, or  manager."  The  judge  held,  further,  that  if 
the  act  were  interpreted  on  the  broad  ground  laid  down  by 
the  plaintiff,  the  owner  of  the  fee,  though  the  property  had 
been  leased  for  a  period  of  several  hundred  years,  would  be 
responsible  for  the  neglect  of  the  tenant  in  possession  to 
put  up  fire-escapes ;  and  this  would  be  the  case  even  if  the 
property  leased  had  been  a  vacant  lot. 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  by  "owner" 
in  the  act  of  1879  was  meant  "owner  in  possession,"  or 
tenant,  was  reaffirmed  by  that  tribunal  a  few  months  later, 
in  an  even  more  pronounced  form,  in  the  case  of  Keely  vs. 
O'Conner.'^ 

Keely,  the  owner  of  a  five-story  mill  building,  had 
leased  each  floor  except  the  first  to  a  separate  party  for 
manufacturing  purposes.  He  himself  occupied  the  ground 
floor,  and  furnished  heat  and  power  throughout  the  building. 
Under  the  lease,  either  Keely  himself  or  his  engineer  or 
watchman  had  free  access  to  the  leased  premises  for  the 
purpose  of  oiling  the  journals  and  of  seeing  that  the  condi- 
tions of  the  lease  as  to  care  and  cleanliness  were  complied 
with.  Being  notified  by  the  mayor  to  erect  a  fire-escape,  Keely 
built  a  wooden  platform  from  the  fifth  floor  to  the  top  of  a 
high  embankment  in  the  rear  of  the  building,  and  connected 
the  other  floors  with  it  by  a  flight  of  steps.     A  fire  occurred 

'Court  of  Common  Pleas  No.  i,  Philadelphia,  January  term,  1884, 
No.  191  (not  reported). 


32  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

in  the  mill  on  December  12,  1882,  and  the  plaintiff,  in  the 
employ  of  Lord  &  O'Conner  (who  leased  the  fourth  floor), 
was  unable  to  escape  by  either  the  internal  or  external  stair- 
ways, and  was  seriously  injured  by  being  forced  to  jump 
from  the  fourth  story  to  the  ground. 

In  the  lower  court  the  verdict  was  for  the  plaintiff,  on 
the  ground  that  Keely  was  the  responsible  party  and  that 
the  escape  erected  had  not  been  in  compliance  with  the  act. 
In  the  appeal  it  was  maintained  that  the  ruling  in  the  case 
of  Schott  vs.  Hai'vey  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  "owner" 
(in  the  act  of  1879)  was  applicable  to  this  case,  even  though 
the  landlord  for  certain  specified  purposes  had  free  access  to 
his  tenants'  premises;  and  that,  moreover,  the  fire-escape 
did  meet  all  legal  requirements.  It  had  been  maintained  by 
the  plaintiff's  counsel  that  this  right  of  access  possessed  by 
the  defendant,  together  with  the  fact  of  his  furnishing 
power  and  heat,  placed  him  in  joint  possession  of  the  leased 
premises  with  his  tenants,  and  that  he  was  therefore  liable 
under  the  act  of  1879. 

In  denying  this,  Mr.  Justice  Clark  (who  delivered  the 
opinion^  of  the  Supreme  Court)  said :  "If  Keely  was  not 
the  owner  in  possession,  if  he  had  no  control  of  the  fourth 
floor  factory,  and  did  not  place  the  operative  in  a  place  of 
danger  or  enjoy  the  benefit  of  her  services,  the  duty  enjoined 
by  the  act  of  1879  ^^^  ^""^t  attach  to  him.  ...  It  is 
true  .  .  .  that  the  floors  were  leased  to  distinct  tenants, 
that  a  like  duty  attached  to  each,  that  in  the  erection  of  fire- 
escapes  each  might  consult  his  own  interests  only,  and  that 
the  lessees  of  the  lower  stories  might  deny  the  privilege  of 
access  to  the  others  for  the  purpose,  but  this  was  a  matter 
to  be  provided  for  beforehand.  The  tenants  of  the  higher 
stories  should  not  voluntarily  place  themselves  in  a  place  of 
such  peril,  unless  they  are  willing  to  accept  the  consequences. 
The  duty  imposed  is  several,  not  joint,  and  attaches  when- 

*Case  heard   April    10,    1884.      Opinion   delivered   October  6,    1884. 
Pennsylvania  State  Reports,  1884,  10  Outcrbridge,  p.  322. 


F ire-Escape  Legidation  (i8yp-i88^).  33 

ever  by  the  use  of  machinery  and  the  employment  of  opera- 
tives the  building  or  apartment  becomes  a  factory." 

Although  this  practically  settled  the  case,  there  re- 
mained the  question  as  to  the  legality  of  the  escape  provided, 
in  the  discussion  of  which  the  judge  incidentally  pointed 
out  a  need  for  future  legislation.  "If,  however,  the  internal 
stairway  be  in  one  end  of  a  building,  we  find  nothing  in  the 
act  which  requires  that  the  external  means  of  escape  shall 
be  at  the  other." 

Acts  of  1885. 

After  these  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  it  was 
natural  that  the  Legislature  should  try  again,  in  1885,  to 
frame  a  law  whose  import  would  be  perfectly  clear.  Two 
fire-escape  bills  were  introduced  in  the  House  on  the  same 
day,  the  first  to  amend  the  act  of  1879,  the  second  to  amend 
the  supplemental  act  of  1883.  The  former  bill  added  to  the 
list  of  buildings  specified  by  the  act  of  1879,  public  halls, 
places  of  amusement  and  parochial  schools  f  made  it  the 
duty  of  the  fire  commissioners  to  see  that  the  number  of 
fire-escapes  was  adequate  and  their  location  proper ;  and 
rendered  the  owner  in  fee  simple,  or  trustees  or  executors 
of  estates,  responsible  for  the  erection  of  escapes.  Im- 
prisonment for  from  one  to  two  months  was  added  to  the 
penalty  for  non-compliance;  and  if  death  or  injury  resulted 
from  the  lack  of  fire-escapes,  the  owners,  besides  being  liable 
for  damages,  should  be  held  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and 
imprisoned  from  six  to  twelve  months. 

Before  the  bill  passed  the  House  it  was  considerably 
improved  by  an  amendment  which  made  it  the  duty  of  "the 
owner  or  owners  in  fee,  or  for  life,  of  every  such  building,^'' 

"In  1897  the  provisions  of  this  act  were  extended  to  buildings  "used 
in  whole  or  in  part  for  offices,  not  of  fireproof  construction" ;  and  by 
the  general  factory  act  of  1901  its  scope  was  still  more  widely  extended. 

"This  met  the  objection  of  Judge  Paxson  that  the  owner  of  the  fee 
might  be  held  responsible  for  the  neglect  of  the  tenant  to  erect  escapes, 
even  if  the  property  leased  had  been  a  vacant  lot. 


34  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

or  trustee  or  trustees  of  every  such  estate,  association,  society, 
college,  seminary,  academy,  hospital,  and  asylum,  owning 
or  using  any  such  building,  and  of  the  board  of  education,  or 
board  of  school  directors  having  charge  of  any  such  school 
building,  to  provide  and  cause  to  be  securely  affixed  outside 
of  every  such  building,  such  permanent  external  unenclosed 
fire-escapes."  The  mover  of  the  amendment  stated  that  he 
had  included  the  owner  for  life  in  his  amendment,  because 
such  an  owner  has  absolute  control  and  possession  of  a 
building  which  may  be  used  for  any  of  the  purposes  men- 
tion in  the  section. 

The  bill  was  still  further  altered  so  as  to  specify  that 
the  fire-escape  should  "consist  of  an  outside,  open  stairway 
of  not  more  than  forty-five  degrees  slant,  the  steps  not  less 
than  six  inches  in  width  and  twenty- four  inches  in  length; 
and  all  such  buildings  capable  of  accommodating  from  lOO 
to  500  or  more  persons  as  occupants  or  inmates,  shall  be 
provided  with  two  such  stairways,  and  more  than  two  stair- 
ways if  such  be  necessary  to  secure  a  speedy  and  safe 
removal  of  said  occupants  or  inmates  in  case  the  internal 
stairways  are  cut  off  by  fire  or  smoke." ^^ 

Further  testimony  as  to  the  zeal  of  the  fire  commis- 
sioners was  offered  by  an  interested  member  of  the  House, 
who  said  he  had  "seen  fire-escapes  erected  from  the  fifth 
story  of  a  building  that  not  even  an  expert  seaman  could 
descend,  to  say  nothing  of  women  and  children ;"  and  if  an 
owner  "were  a  particular  friend  of  the  board  of  fire  com- 
missioners they  would  approve  most  anything."  So  he  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  as  little  leeway  as  possible  should 
be  left  to  tlie  board  of  fire  commissioners.  That  such  fears 
were  not  groundless  will  be  shown  by  the  future  develop- 
ments in  the  enforcement  of  the  fire-escape  laws. 

"This  clause  remedied  that  particular  weakness  in  the  earlier  act 
pointed  out  by  Judj^e  Clark  (Kecly  vs.  O'Conner),  viz.:  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  act  of  1879  which  required  the  external  fire-escape  to  be 
removed  some  distance  from  the  internal  stairways. 


Fire-Escape  Legislation  (187(^-1885).  35 

The  endeavor  was  made  to  have  the  imprisonment  pen- 
alty removed,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  practical  to 
imprison  a  corporation,  but  this  amendment  was  not  agreed 
to.  However,  "school  directors"  and  "school  district"  were 
changed  to  "county  commissioners"  and  "county."  And  in 
this  form,  with  only  some  slight  changes,  the  bill  became 
a  law. 

The  second  fire-escape  bill  brought  in  at  this  session 
was  an  amendment  to  the  act  of  1883.  The  same  terms — 
"owners  in  fee  or  for  life" — were  introduced  into  this  bill, 
so  as  effectually  to  dispose  of  the  question  as  to  where  the 
responsibility  lay.  The  penalty  was  increased  by  adding  to 
the  former  fine  of  $300  imprisonment  for  from  one  to  twelve 
months  and  a  liability  for  damages  in  case  of  resulting 
injury.  Section  3  of  the  act  amended,  giving  tenants  the 
right  to  erect  fire-escapes  and  take  the  cost  out  of  the  rent, 
was  repealed.  In  the  Senate  a  clause  was  added  requiring 
the  hallways  and  stairways  of  buildings  amenable  to  the  act 
to  be  properly  lighted  at  night,  and  fire  alarms  or  gongs 
were  to  be  placed  so  as  to  be  easy  of  access  and  ready  for 
use  in  case  of  fire.  The  fire  commissioners  were  given  some 
discretionary  power  as  to  the  location  of  escapes,  and  were 
to  grant  certificates  of  approval  to  all  who  had  complied 
with  the  act,  which  certificates  were  to  relieve  the  parties  of 
all  liabilities  for  penalties  or  damages.  This  bill  was  signed 
by  the  Governor  on  the  same  day  as  the  other  amendatory 
act. 

Further  Legislation  Needed  {Decision  of  iSp^). 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  none  of  the  fire-escape 
measures  encountered  any  opposition  in  the  Legislature,  the 
vote  being  frequently  unanimous.  The  discussion  mainly 
turned  on  how  to  make  them  valid  in  the  courts,  and  on 
how  much  power  it  was  best  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  the 
commissioners. 

In  making  the  owner,  in  fee  or  for  life,  responsible  for 


36  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

the  erection  of  the  escape,  not  all  the  difficulties  had  been 
met.  The  tenant  may  obstruct  the  way  to  the  escape,  so  as 
to  make  it  worthless :  as  was  shown  a  few  years  later  in  the 
case  of  Elizabeth  Sewell  vs.  James  C.  Moore/^  which  was 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  decided  in  March,  1895. 
The  opinion  was  given  by  Mr.  Justice  Mitchell. 

The  defendant  had  erected  a  fire-escape  on  the  factory 
of  which  he  was  the  owner,  but  had  not  received  a  certifi- 
cate. The  tenant  had  closed  and  locked  the  door  leading 
to  the  escape,  and  on  that  account  the  plaintiff  could  not 
reach  the  escape,  and  in  jumping  from  a  window  was 
injured. 

The  judge  decided  that  the  effect  of  the  absence  of  a 
certificate  of  approval  was  only  to  put  on  the  owner  the  bur- 
den of  proof  that  he  had  complied  with  the  law.  He  also 
decided  that  where  the  owner  of  a  building  had  provided  a 
proper  fire-escape,  but  the  injured  party  was  unable  to  reach 
it  because  access  had  been  cut  off  by  one  of  the  tenants, 
whose  act  the  owner  could  not  control,  the  owner  was  not 
liable  in  damages  to  the  injured  persons.  This  showed  that 
further  legislation  was  (and,  it  may  be  added,  still  is) 
needed  to  compel  tenants  to  keep  open  the  way  to  the  escape. 

"Appealed  from  Court  of  Common  Pleas  No.  3,  Philadelphia,  June 
term,  1892.     Pennsylvania  State  Reports,  Kress,  166,  p.  570. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Attempts  to  Regulate  Payment  of  Wages 
(1879-1901). 

Payment  of  Wages  Bill  of  i8yp. 

For  over  twenty  years  the  legislators  at  Harrisburg 
have  tried  in  vain  to  regulate  the  time  and  manner  of  wage 
payment.  As  to  time :  monthly,  and  finally  semi-monthly ; 
as  to  manner :  "in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States" — 
which  meant  that  it  must  no  longer  be  in  the  hated  "store- 
order."  The  so-called  "company  stores,"  owned  if  not 
operated  by  most  mining  corporations  and  even  by  some  of 
the  larger  manufacturing  concerns,  have  often  been  de- 
scribed, and  the  bondage  in  which  many  of  them  held  the 
employee  has  been  widely  depicted. 

Curiously  enough,  legislation  intended  mainly  to  benefit 
the  miner  was  at  length  (1891)  given  over  to  the  newly 
created  Department  of  Factory  Inspection  for  enforcement, 
where  it  remained  until  overthrown  by  the  courts  as  opposed 
to  freedom  of  contract.  With  recent  attempts  in  the  same 
direction  this  department  has  had  no  of^cial  relation,  and 
they  are  chronicled  here  only  because  the  story  would  not 
be  complete  without  them. 

In  1843  petitions  had  been  received  for  legislation 
against  the  payment  of  wages  in  store-orders;  and  just 
twenty  years  later  Governor  Curtin,  in  his  annual  message, 
recommended  the  passing  of  such  a  law.  In  1879  this 
agitation  was  revived  by  the  introduction  into  the  lower 
house  of  a  bill  for  this  purpose.  As  the  bill  failed  to  become 
a  law,  it  is  noteworthy  only  for  the  speech  made  in  its  favor 
by  the  member  who  introduced  it. 

He  was  aware  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  act 
would  be  called  in  question,  since  it  would  have  no  force 

(37) 


38  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

unless  it  forbade  the  employer  and  employee  to  make  con- 
tracts contrary  to  its  provisions,  and  this  the  courts  might 
hold  to  be  an  infringement  of  the  right  to  freedom  of  con- 
tract. He  suggested  a  line  of  argument,  together  with  some 
further  supporting  legislation,  by  which  he  thought  the  act 
might  be  sustained.  A  contract  made  to  waive  the  right 
of  payment  of  wages  in  money  or  at  regular  intervals  was 
not  usually,  he  believed,  a  voluntary  act  on  the  part  of  the 
employee;  and  he  asked,  "May  not  this  Legislature  provide 
that  such  conditions,  unconscionable  because  not  voluntary, 
shall  not  be  competent  and  admissible  evidence  in  a  course 
of  action  in  which  the  simple  elements  of  a  contract  are  the 
primary  facts  to  be  considered?"  The  statutes  already 
"declare  that  certain  contracts  are  voidable.  .  .  .  From 
these  references  [which  he  enumerates]  it  will  be  perceived 
that  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  determine 
what  contracts  are  now  enforcible  in  the  courts."  Li  sup- 
port of  his  position  he  quotes  Story's  Equity  Jurisprudence 
(pp.  1 52-161),  that  "Contracts  extracted  from  a  poor  man 
in  his  weak  moments,  are  unconscionable  and  contrary  to 
public  policy,  and  will  not  be  enforced  in  the  courts."^ 

The  Senate  bill  which  superseded  this  one,  and  which 
was  vetoed  by  the  Governor  on  the  ground  of  unconstitu- 
tionality, contained  a  section  providing  that  "Any  contract 
the  legal  construction  of  which  would  avoid  the  force  and 
effect  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  shall  be  incompetent  and 
inadmissible  as  evidence  in  any  suit." 

Payment  of  Wages  Act  of  188 1. 

In  1 88 1  four  bills  on  the  payment  of  wages  were  intro- 
duced in  the  House.    Two  were  negatived  in  committee,  and 

'In  reading  the  debates  in  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  on  this 
and  similar  measures  one  is  struck  by  the  fact  that  the  subject  which 
'S  sure  to  be  discussed  with  considerable  clearness,  and  sometimes  with 
decided  ability,  is  the  legal  aspect  of  the  question.  Its  economic  and 
social  side  generally  receives  demogogic  arguments  in  its  support,  and 
equally  shallow  and  prejudiced  opposition. 


Attempts  to  Regulate  Wages  (i8yp-ipoi).  39 

the  other  two — one  of  which  was  to  protect  workingmen 
and  merchants  from  company  stores,  and  the  other  to  pro- 
vide for  the  payment  of  laborers  at  regular  intervals — were 
finally  united  into  one  measure,  entitled  "An  act  to  secure 
to  operatives  and  laborers  engaged  in  and  about  coal  mines, 
manufactories  of  iron  and  steel,  and  all  other  manufactories, 
the  payment  of  their  wages  at  regular  intervals  and  in  lawful 
money  of  the  United  States ;"  and  providing  that  from  and 
after  September  i,  1881,  all  persons,  firms,  companies,  cor- 
porations or  associations  engaged  in  the  mining  of  coal,  ore 
or  other  mineral,  or  mining  and  manufacturing  them,  or 
iron  and  steel,  or  any  other  kind  of  manufacturing,  should 
settle  with  their  employees  at  least  once  in  each  month,  and 
pay  them  for  their  Avork  or  services  either  in  lawful  money 
of  the  United  States  or  by  a  cash  order,  /.  e.,  an  order  pur- 
porting to  be  redeemable  for  its  face  value  in  lawful  money 
of  the  United  States,  bearing  interest  at  legal  rate,  made 
payable  to  employee  or  bearer,  and  redeemable  within  a 
period  of  thirty  days  by  the  parties  making  or  issuing  the 
same.  And  any  person  w^ho  should  issue  for  payment  of 
labor  any  paper  or  order  other  than  the  cash  order  above 
described  would  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  liable  to 
a  fine  not  exceeding  $100,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court, 
the  fine  to  go  to  the  common  school  fund  of  the  district 
wherein  the  crime  was  committed. 

It  was  further  provided  that  it  should  be  unlawful  for 
any  manufacturer  or  coal  operator  who  might  be  also  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  interested  in  merchandising,  knowingly 
and  wilfully  to  sell  to  any  employee  any  goods  whatever  for 
a  greater  per  cent  of  profit  than  merchandise  of  like  quantity 
and  quality  were  sold  to  other  customers  buying  for  cash 
and  not  employed  by  them.  The  debts  for  goods  so  sold 
should  not  be  collectible.  Finally,  upon  twenty  days'  failure 
to  pay  their  employees  at  the  regular  intervals  provided 
above,  or  to  redeem  any  of  the  "cash  orders"  within  the  time 
specified  (thirty  days),  if  the  same  were  presented  and  suit 


40  Factory  Legislation  in  P ennsylzwiia. 

brought  for  the  amount  overdue,  the  debt  was  to  carry 
interest  at  one  per  cent  a  month.  It  was  also  provided  that 
nothing  contained  in  this  act  should  affect  the  right  of  an 
employee  to  assign  the  whole  or  any  part  of  his  claim 
against  his  employer.  And  in  this  form  the  bill  passed  both 
houses. 

Act  of  1881  Declared  Unconstitutional  (1886). 

Two  decisions  were  rendered  by  the  lower  courts  in 
1885,-  and  one  the  following  year,^  upholding  the  act  of 
1 88 1  in  its  prohibition  of  the  payment  of  wages  in  store- 
orders.  But  when  (1886)  the  last  case,  familiarly  known 
as  Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman,  was  carried  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  state,  the  judgment  of  the  lower  court  was 
reversed.  Mr.  Justice  Gordon  delivered  the  opinion.^  After 
maintaining  that  the  orders  given  by  the  defendant  and 
received  by  the  plaintiff  were  a  proper  set-off,  Judge  Gordon 
declared  that  the  first  four  sections  of  the  act  were  "utterly 
unconstitutional  and  void,  inasmuch  as  by  them  an  attempt 
had  been  made  by  the  Legislature  to  do  what,  in  this  coun- 
try, cannot  be  done;  that  is,  prevent  persons  who  are  sui 
juris  from  making  their  own  contracts.  The  act  is  an 
infringement  likewise  of  the  right  of  the  employer  and  the 
employee;  more  than  this,  it  is  an  insulting  attempt  to  put 
the  laborer  under  a  legislative  tutelage,  which  is  not  only 
degrading  to  his  manhood,  but  subversive  of  his  rights  as 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  may  sell  his  labor  for 
what  he  thinks  best,  whether  money  or  goods,  just  as  his 

'Kettering  vs.  The  Imperial  Coal  Co., — Judge  Ewing.  Court  of 
Common  Pleas  No.  2,  Pittsburg.  See  Pittsburg  Legal  Journal,  Vol. 
XV  (N.  S.),  p.  359.  Rowe  vs.  Haddock  et  al, — Judge  Rice.  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  Luzerne  Co.,  Wilkesbarre.  Luzerne  Legal  Register 
Reports   (Kulp),  1886,  p.  501. 

'Godcharles  &  Co.  vs.  Wiegman.  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  North- 
umberland County,  January  term,  1886,  No.  196. 

'Case  heard  April  28.  Opinion  delivered  October  4.  Pennsylvania 
State  Reports,  1886,  3  Amerman,  p.  431. 


Attempts  to  Regulate  PVages  (i8/p-Jpoi).  41 

employer  may  sell  his  iron  or  coal,  and  any  and  every  law 
that  proposes  to  prevent  him  from  so  doing,  is  an  infringe- 
ment of  his  constitutional  privileges  and  consequently 
vicious  and  void." 

Commenting  on  the  above,  in  the  American  Law  Regis- 
ter and  Review,  Ardemus  Stewart,  Esq.,  pertinently  refers 
to  this  opinion  as  containing  "that  tinsel-like  speciousness 
of  epigram  that  is  so  often  foisted  on  the  world  in  place  of 
sound  reason."  And  continues :  "But  with  all  the  defer- 
ence possible  under  the  circumstances,  one  may  well  stop  to 
inquire  whether  it  is  more  degrading  to  be  forced  to  labor 
at  wages  barely  sufficient  to  keep  soul  and  body  together, 
and  then  be  compelled  to  accept  goods  at  exorbitant  prices, 
instead  of  the  needed  money,  or  to  be  freed  from  that  oppres- 
sion when  unable  to  free  oneself,  even  if  it  be  by  the  exercise 
of  a  little  paternalism.  Certainly  most  men  would  prefer  to 
be  the  slaves  of  the  public,  rather  than  of  a  private  indi- 
vidual or  corporation.     But  tastes  differ!" 

The  judge's  decision  that  the  first  four  sections  were 
unconstitutional  destroyed  the  act  entirely,  as  the  remaining 
clauses  had  only  to  do  with  its  enforcement. 

Payment  of  Wages  Act  of  iSSy. 

After  two  failures  (in  1883  and  1885)  to  secure  the 
semi-monthly  payment  of  wages,  and  in  the  face  of  the 
unfavorable  decision  on  the  act  of  1881,  such  a  law  was 
finally  enacted  in  1887,  applying  to  "every  individual,  firm, 
association  or  corporation  employing  wage  workers,  skilled 
or  ordinary,  laborers  engaged  at  manual  or  clerical  work, 
in  the  business  of  mining  or  manufacturing,  or  any  other 
employees;"  and  requiring  such  employers  to  make  pay- 
ment in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  the  first  pay- 
ment to  be  made  between  the  ist  and  15th  and  the  sec- 
ond between  the  15th  and  30th  of  each  month,  such  pay- 
ments to  be  the  full  net  amount  of  wages  or  earnings  due 
their  employees  on  the  ist  and  15th  of  each  month  wherein 


42  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

such  payments  were  made.  Employers  refusing  or  neg- 
lecting to  make  payments  upon  the  dates  above  specified 
were  liable  to  a  legal  claim  for  the  amount  unpaid,  with 
interest  from  the  date  the  amount  had  fallen  due. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  act,  although  it  required  the 
payment  of  wages  in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States, 
did  not  provide  for  the  enforcement  of  that  clause,  which, 
therefore,  might  as  well  have  been  omitted.  Neither  did 
the  act  say  that  contracts  releasing  the  employer  from  com- 
pliance with  the  act  should  not  be  binding. 

Amendatory  Act  of  iSpi. 

In  1 89 1,  however,  the  payment  of  wages  act  of  1887 
was  strengthened  by  making  its  violation  a  misdemeanor, 
and  the  penalty  a  fine  of  $200  to  $500.  No  assignment  of 
future  wages  payable  under  the  act  was  valid,  nor  any 
agreement  relieving  the  employee  for  the  obligations  of  the 
act.  The  enforcement  of  this  statute,  which  applied  to  both 
mining  and  manufacturing,  was  committed  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Factory  Inspection. 

Company  Store  Act  of  i8pi. 

The  decision  of  Judge  Gordon  in  the  case  of  Godcharles 
vs.  Wiegman  showed  that,  for  the  present  at  least,  no  laws 
prohibiting  the  payment  of  wages  in  store-orders  could  be 
sustained  in  Pennsylvania.  Therefore  an  act  forbidding 
corporations  to  maintain  company  stores  was  the  nearest 
approach  to  an  anti-truck  law  that  could  be  secured.  Ac- 
cordingly, a  company  store  bill,  which  had  been  defeated  in 
1889,  was  reintroduced  and  passed  in  189T. 

This  act  forbade  mining  or  manufacturing  corpora- 
tions, or  their  officers  or  stockholders  acting  in  behalf  of 
such  corporations,  to  carry  on  by  direct  or  indirect  means 
any  store  known  as  a  company  store,  where  goods  and 
merchandise  other  than  such  as  had  been  mined  or  manu- 
factured by  the  corporation  were  kept  for  sale. 


Attempts  to  Regulate  Wages  (i8/p-ipoi).  43 

The  corporation  was  forbidden  to  lease,  grant  or  sell 
to  any  of  its  officers  or  stockholders  or  any  other  person  the 
right  to  maintain  upon  its  property  any  such  store,  when- 
ever such  lease  was  intended  to  defeat  the  provisions  of  this 
act.  Neither  might  the  corporation  make  any  bargain  with 
the  keepers  of  any  store  whereby  the  employees  should  be 
obliged  to  trade  with  such  keeper,  and  any  such  contract 
should  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  violation  of  the  act. 
The  penalty  was  a  forfeiture  of  charter,  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral to  proceed  by  writ  of  quo  zvarranto  on  receipt  of  a 
complaint  signed  by  two  or  more  citizens  of  the  county. 

Payment  of  Wages  Decisions  (i8pj-6-/). 

In  1895-6-7  several  cases  arising  under  the  semi- 
monthly pay  law  of  1891  were  decided.  This  law,  besides 
providing"  for  the  intervals  of  payment,  had  stipulated  that 
it  must  be  in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States,  and  that  no 
assignment  of  future  wages  payable  semi-monthly  under 
the  act  should  be  valid  that  relieved  the  employer  from  the 
obligation  to  pay  semi-monthh^  and  in  lawful  money  of  the 
United  States. 

In  the  case  of  Hamilton  a's.  Jutte  &  Co.^  the  plaintiff, 
who  was  a  miner,  had  accepted  as  part  of  his  wages  the 
payment  of  a  running  account  at  a  store  kept  on  the  de- 
fendants' propertv,  but  which  was  claimed  not  to  be  a  com- 
pany store.  After  being  discharged  the  plaintiff  sued  for 
the  amount  paid  by  the  defendant  to  the  store  in  payment  of 
the  plaintiff's  account.  The  judge  maintained  that,  had  the 
plaintiff'  not  agreed  to  the  store  arrangement,  he  could  re- 
cover the  amount,  but  having  once  agreed  he  could  not  do  so, 
since  "no  act  of  assembly  can  prevent  a  man  from  making  a 
contract  to  accept  payment  in  any  way  he  pleases." 

A  similar  case,  that  of  Sallv  vs.  Benvind-White  Coal 


'Common  Pleas,  Fayette  County,  September  term,  1894.  Charge 
to  the  jury,  February  27,  1895,  by  Ewing,  P.  J.  County  Court  Reports, 
Vol  XVI,  p.  193- 


44  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Mining  Company,^  was  decided  in  the  same  way,  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1896,  the  judge  concluding  his  opinion  as  follows: 

"If  the  Legislature  intended  by  this  enactment  to  pre- 
vent persons  competent  to  contract  from  making  such  con- 
tracts as  they  deemed  mutually  advantageous  and  which  are 
not  harmful  in  themselves,  or  in  conflict  with  the  rights  of 
others,  then  it  is  not  only  violative  of  the  constitution,  but 
of  a  law  as  old  as  humanity  itself." 

In  May,  1894,  through  the  Factory  Inspection  Depart- 
ment, suit  was  brought  in  Clearfield  County — Cornmon- 
zvealth  vs.  Isenberg  &  Rozvlan(P — against  a  coal  mining 
firm  who  had  engaged  various  persons  to  work  for  them, 
by  a  verbal  agreement,  nothing  being  said  as  to  the  duration 
of  employment  or  time  of  payment.  They  admitted  that 
the  times  of  payment  had  not  been  according  to  the  act,  but 
as  a  defense  claimed  that  the  act  was  unconstitutional  on 
three  grounds :  First,  it  was  a  law  "impairing  the  obliga- 
tion of  contracts"  (Art.  i,  sec.  17,  Constitution  of  Pennsyl- 
vania; second,  it  interfered  with  the  right  of  "acquiring, 
possessing  and  protecting  property"  (Art.  i,  sec.  i)  ;  third, 
it  was  a  "local  or  special  law  .  .  .  regulating  trade, 
mining  or  manufacturing"  (Art.  3,  sec.  7).  The  case  was 
decided  in  August,  1895,  by  Judge  Gordon.  After  refer- 
ring to  the  decision  of  Mr.  Justice  Gordon  in  the  case  of 
Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman  and  to  a  recent  decision  on  a 
similar  law  in  Ohio  in  which  the  law  was  declared  uncon- 
stitutional, the  judge  decided  that  the  law  was  unconstitu- 
tional on  the  first  two  grounds  given  by  the  defense,  and 
that  it  was  unnecessary  to  pass  upon  the  third. 

In  1897  another  "payment  of  wages"  decision  was  ren- 
dered, this  time  by  the  Superior  Court,  in  the  case  of  Sho- 

*Common  Pleas,  Jefferson  County,  May  term,  1895,  No.  103.  Reed, 
P.  J.,  February  10,  1896.    District  Reports,  Vol.  V,  p.  316. 

'Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  Clearfield  County,  May  sessions,  1894, 
No.  14,  Gordon,  P.  J.,  August  3,  1895,  District  Reports,  Vol.  IV,  p.  579- 


Attempts  to  Regulate  Wages  (iSyp-ipoi).  45 

waiter  vs.  Ehlen  and  Rome,  Appellants.^  In  this  case,  as  in 
that  of  Hamilton  vs.  Jutte  &  Co.,  the  plaintiff  had  accepted 
goods  from  the  defendants'  store  in  part  payment  of  his 
wages.  Apparently,  the  buying  of  goods  at  this  store  had 
been  voluntary  on  his  part ;  but  he  now  claimed  that  under 
the  act  of  1891  he  could  again  recover  the  amount  of  his 
wages  so  taken. 

The  decision  pointed  out  that  the  requiring  of  the  pay- 
ment of  wages  in  money  had  been  declared  unconstitu- 
tional, not  only  by  various  district  courts,  but  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman.  The  court  then 
continued  as  follows : 

"Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  acts  mentioned  [1881  and 
1891]  a  laborer  always  could  demand  payment  of  his  wages 
in  money,  if  he  had  made  no  agreement  to  the  contrary ;  but 
the  purpose  of  these  two  statutes  was  to  enable  him,  after 
making  an  agreement  to  accept  another  commodity  in  lieu 
of  cash,  and,  receiving  it,  to  repudiate  the  agreement  and 
recover  payment  again  in  money.  Common  honesty  forbids 
that,  and  the  law  estops  him  from  doing  it.  If  men  could 
thus,  by  classes,  obtain  license  from  the  Legislature  to  play 
fast  and  loose  with  their  bargains,  the  most  solemn  con- 
tractual relations  would  soon  become  a  mere  farce  and  the 
civil  courts  might  as  well  be  closed.  The  fate  of  the  act  of 
1 88 1  should  have  been  a  sufficient  warning  against  the 
passage  of  that  of  1891." 

With  the  act  of  1891  declared  unconstitutional,  it  is 
fortunate  that  the  practice  of  paying  wages  at  least  once  in 
two  weeks  has  become  so  general  that  the  need  for  its 
enforcement  is  practically  at  an  end. 

Company  Stores — Opinions  of  Attorney  General   (i8p6). 
For  a  decade  of  years,  beginning  with  the  really  de- 
cisive case  of  Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman,  in  1886,  the  Penn- 

•Appeal,  April  term,  1897,  by  defendants,  from  judgment  of  Com- 
mon Pleas  Court  of  Somerset  County,  February  term,  1897,  on  verdict 
for  plaintiff.     Superior  Court  Reports,  Vol.  V,  p.  242. 


46  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

sylvania  judiciary  had  been  steadily  setting  its  face  against 
the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  prevent  the 
pa)^ment  of  wages  in  store-orders.  This  trend  had  become 
so  well  understood  by  1891  as  to  lead  to  a  varying  of  the 
attack,  as  we  have  seen,  by  prohibiting  company  stores  abso- 
lutely. In  the  enforcement  of  this  company  store  act  of 
1 89 1,  certain  citizens  of  Johnstown  in  1896  petitioned  the 
Attorney  General  for  a  writ  of  quo  warranto  against  the 
Cambria  Iron  Company.^  This  petition  averred  that  the 
Cambria  Iron  Company  had  been  conducting  a  company 
store,  known  as  the  "Penn  Traffic  Company,  Limited,"  in 
connection  with  its  works.  And  the  petition  was  supple- 
mented with  an  affidavit  that  the  stockholders  and  officers 
of  the  Cambria  Iron  Company  were  also  stockholders  in  the 
Penn  Traffic  Company,  and  that  employees  of  the  first 
named  company  were  obliged  to  settle  their  accounts  with 
this  store  on  pain  of  discharge,  even  though  the  account 
might  seem  to  the  employee  an  unjust  one.  The  respondent 
filed  an  answer,  denying  every  averment  in  the  petition  and 
affidavit. 

Attorney  General  McCormick  decided  that  as  every 
allegation  of  the  plaintiffs  had  been  specifically  denied  by 
the  defendants,  and  the  proof  offered  was  not  of  the  sort 
that  would  stand  before  the  courts,  the  writ  ought  not  to 
be  issued ;  and  that  in  this  he  was  following  his  predecessor, 
Attorney  General  Hensel,  who  had  refused  to  institute  any 
proceeding  that  was  not  likely,  in  his  opinion,  to  be  success- 
fully maintained.  Mr.  McCormick  regarded  this  act  as  "so 
highly  penal  in  its  nature  and  operation  that  the  courts 
would  be  compelled  to  construe  it  strictly." 

Undaunted  by  this  failure,  another  attempt  was  soon 
made  to  secure  a  writ  of  quo  zvarranto,  this  time  against  the 
Sonman  Coal  Mining  Company.^^  Attorney  General  Mc- 
Cormick, after  pointing  out  that  his  department  was  author- 

•County  Court  Reports,  1896,  Vol  XVIT,  p.  4I5- 
"County  Court  Reports,  Vol.  XXITI,  p.  300. 


Attempts  to  Regulate  Wages  (i8yp-ipoi).  47 

ized  to  institute  such  a  suit  only  on  sworn  written  complaint 
of  two  or  more  citizens  of  the  county  where  the  offense  was 
committed,  decided^^  that  "in  the  case  under  consideration 
a  suggestion  for  a  writ  of  quo  zvarranto  will  be  immediately 
filed."  Here  the  matter  ended.  The  constitutionality  of 
the  act  has  not  been  tested,  for  the  reason  that  the  "act  has 
never  been  enforced  because  the  miners  at  whose  request  it 
was  enacted  never  carried  proceedings  beyond  the  complaint 
made  to  the  Attorney  General. "^^  This  is  unfortunate.  The 
law  should  be  tested  or  removed  from  the  statute  books. 

Taxation  of  Store-Orders — Bills  of  iSgy,  i8pp; 
Act  of  ipoi. 

We  now  reach  the  third  stage  in  the  legislative  fight 
against  the  company  store.  During  the  first  stage  (1881- 
91)  the  Legislature  succeeded  only  in  decreeing  that  wages 
must  be  paid  in  "lawful  money  of  the  United  States,"  all 
agreements  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  This,  as  we 
have  discovered,  was  battered  down  by  the  courts  from 
behind  their  bulwark  of  "freedom  of  contract."  Then 
(1891)  the  Legislature  turned  to  the  prohibition  of  com- 
pany stores,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  charter  by  the 
offending  corporation.  But  this  highly  penal  remedy  would 
seem  to  have  been  regarded  as  too  drastic  by  the  state's 
prosecuting  attorneys;  so  that,  as  a  last  resort,  the  Legis- 
lature (1901)  adopted  the  device  of  taxing  all  orders  of 
whatever  character,  given  in  payment  of  wages,  not  re- 
deemed within  thirty  days  in  "lawful  money  of  the  United 
States." 

But  this  battle  was  not  won  without  two  preliminary 
skirmishes  in  the  sessions  of  1897  and  1899.  At  the  former 
session  the  bill  passed  both  houses,  but  was  vetoed  by  the 
Governor  on  the  ground  that  it  was  special  legislation  and 
hence  unconstitutional. 

"January  4,  1898. 

"Letter  from  former  Inspector  Campbell. 


48  Factory  Legislation  in  Poiiisyhania^ 

The  text  of  this  store  order  tax  bill  was  as  follows  '}^ 
"Sec.  I.  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  every  person,  firm,  part- 
nership, corporation  or  association  engaged  in  operating  oil 
or  gas  wells,  conducting  oil  or  gas  in  pipes,  operating  quar- 
ries, operating  canal,  steamboat,  ship,  steamship,  ferry, 
transportation,  tonnage,  paving,  macadamizing,  steam  heat, 
steam  power,  telephoning,  telegraph,  express,  electric  light, 
railways,  railroad,  cable  road,  water  or  gas  companies, 
mining  or  manufacturing,  shall,  upon  the  first  day  of  No- 
vember of  each  and  every  year,  make  a  report  under  oath 
or  afifirmation  to  the  Auditor  General  of  the  number  and 
amount  of  all  orders,  checks,  dividers,  coupons,  pass-books 
or  other  paper  representing  the  amount  in  part  or  whole  of 
the  wages  or  earnings  of  any  employee  that  were  given,  made 
or  issued  by  him,  them  or  it  for  payment  of  labor,  and  not 
redeemed  ...  by  paying  to  the  employee  or  a  member 
of  his  family  the  full  face  value  of  said  order,  check  [etc.], 
in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  within  thirty  (30) 
days  from  the  giving,  making  or  issuing  thereof,  the  honor- 
ing though  of  said  order,  check  [etc.],  by  a  duly  chartered 
bank  by  the  payment  in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States 
to  the  amount  of  said  paper  representing  an  amount  due  for 
wages  or  earnings  is  a  payment,  and  he,  they  or  it  shall  pay 
into  the  treasury  of  the  commonwealth  ten  (10)  per  centum 
on  the  face  value  of  such  orders,  checks  [etc.]  not  redeemed 
as  aforesaid."  In  case  of  neglect  or  refusal  to  make  the 
report  to  the  Auditor  General  required  by  this  section,  "on 
or  before  the  first  days  of  December  of  each  and  every  year," 
the  person,  firm  or  corporation  so  offending  was  to  "pay  as 
a  penalty  into  the  state  treasury  twenty-five  (25)  per 
centum  in  addition  to  the  ten  (10)  per  centum  tax  imposed 
as  aforesaid  in  this  section." 

Section  2  of  the  bill  ordered  that  "fifteen  (15)  per 
centum  of  the  twenty-five  (25)  per  centum  so  imposed  as 

"Legislative  Record,  p.  2917. 


Attempts  to  Regulate  Wages  (i8jC}-i^oi).  49 

aforesaid"  should  be  paid  by  the  State  Treasurer  to  the 
person  informing  the  Auditor  General  or  State  Treasurer 
of  such  unredeemed  orders,  checks,  etc. 

At  the  next  legislative  session  (1899)  a  bill  almost 
identical  with  the  above  was  introduced  in  the  House,  with 
the  substitution  of  twenty-five  per  centum  for  ten  per 
centum.  In  the  discussion,  Mr.  Wodruff,  of  Philadelphia, 
pointed  out^^  that  the  store-orders  provided  for  the  buying 
of  about  everything  used  by  the  miner,  e.  g.,  powder,  mining 
implements,  rent,  coal,  merchandise,  and  even  the  services 
of  doctor,  preacher  or  priest.  He  asserted  further  that  the 
Hazleton  riots  were  "made  possible"  because  of  the  company 
stores.  Later  in  the  debate  the  report  of  the  recent  House 
commission  to  investigate  the  troubles  in  the  coal  regions 
(both  bituminous  and  anthracite)  was  quoted  from,  to  the 
effect  that  the  company  store  was  the  "great  crying  evil  of 
those  regions ;"  and  that  said  committee  had  "recommended 
that  the  company  store  be  abolished."  One  member  perti- 
nently inquired  whether  the  keeping  of  company  stores  had 
not  already  been  prohibited — and  how,  then,  could  the 
Legislature  tax  an  illegal  act  ? 

Though  passed  by  the  House,  the  bill  received  scant 
consideration  in  the  Senate.  But  in  1901  this  same  taxation 
of  store-orders  bill  was  enacted  into  law,  though  with  the 
proviso  added :  "Provided,  This  act  shall  not  apply  to  tools 
and  blasting  material,  and  other  mine  supplies,  furnished  by 
the  employer  to  the  employee,  used  by  the  employee  at  or 
about  the  employee's  vocation ;  nor  to  coal  sold  by  the  em- 
ployer to  the  employee,  nor  to  rent  for  houses  leased  from 
the  employer  and  occupied  by  the  employee.  And  proinded 
further,  That  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  moneys  paid  to  the 
treasurers  of  the  employees  about  coal  mines  who  have 
agreed  to  have  a  pro  rata  part  of  their  earnings  paid  by  the 
operators  to  such  treasurers  who  are  to  pay  check  weigh- 
men  or  check  treasurers." 


50  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Taxation  of  Store-Orders  Decisions  (ipoi-2). 

On  December  20,  1901,  the  Dauphin  County  Court 
handed  down  opinions  in  three  separate  cases  relating  to  the 
taxation  of  store-orders :  Comnionzvealth  vs.  Bethlehem 
Steel  Company,'^^  Commonwealth  vs.  Rochester  and  Pitts- 
burg Coal  and  Iron  Company, '^^  Commonwealth  vs.  Lehigh 
Coal  and  Navigation  Company.''-'^  In  none  of  these  deci- 
sions was  the  constitutionahty  of  the  taxation  of  store- 
orders  act  of  1901  called  in  question,  the  only  point  decided 
being  that  the  defendant  companies  had  not  brought  them- 
selves within  reach  of  its  taxing  provisions.  And  when, 
later,  the  last-named  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
that  body  contented  itself  with  finding^^  that  "the  state- 
ments of  the  corporation  in  this  case  have  neither  the  form 
nor  the  semblance  of  the  store-orders  which  the  state  sub- 
jects to  taxation" — thus  virtually  acknowledging  the  right 
of  the  Legislature  to  impose  this  almost  prohibitory  tax. 

The  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the 
right  to  tax  carries  with  it  the  right  to  destroy  by  taxation ; 
and  this  power  would  naturally  extend  to  the  several  com- 
monwealths. Thus  freedom  of  contract  must  give  way 
before  the  taxing  power — even  as  it  has  before  the  police 
power. 

"County  Court  Reports,  Vol  XXVI,  p.  225. 

"County  Court  Reports,  Vol.  XXVI,  p.  481. 

"Unreported. 

"Pennsylvania   State   Reports,  Vol.    CCVI,  p.  641. 


CHAPTER  V. 
General  Factory  Acts  (1887- 1893). 

Acts  of  1887  Relating  to  Women  and  Children. 

The  session  of  1887  was  marked  by  a  revival  of  interest 
in  the  conditions  of  employment  of  women  and  children, 
concerning  which  there  had  been  no  legislation  since  1855; 
but  before  considering  the  bills  introduced  on  the  subject,  it 
may  be  well  to  notice  some  of  the  influences  which  were 
leading  up  to  this  awakening. 

The  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics,  established  in 
1874,^  paid  considerable  attention  in  its  reports  from  1880 
to  1889  to  the  subject  of  child  labor,  especially  in  the  textile 
industries.  In  1881  and  1883  the  chief  of  the  bureau  sent 
out  blanks  to  the  textile  factories  asking  for  the  number  of 
adult  males,  females  and  children  employed.  The  statistics 
thus  obtained  are  hardly  worthy  the  name,  but  the  dearth 
of  reliable  information  about  Pennsylvania  factories  prior  to 
the  establishment  of  a  Department  of  Factory  Inspection 
(1889)  is  so  great  that  we  must  make  use  of  every  frag- 
ment purporting  to  be  official. 

In  1881^  625  blanks  were  issued  to  the  textile  estab- 
lishments, fifteen  per  cent  of  which  made  no  returns.  But 
assuming,  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  with  similar  statis- 
tics obtained  two  years  later,  that  the  average  numbers  and 
ages  of  the  hands  employed  were  the  same  in  the  fifteen 
per  cent  making  no  return  as  in  the  eighty-five  per  cent  that 
did  reply,  the  following  totals  are  obtained : 

^It   succeeded    the    Bureau    of    Labor    Statistics,    which    had   been 
established  two  years  earlier  (1872). 

*See  Report  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics,  pp.   102  and  159. 

(SI) 


52  Factory  Legislation  in  Pemisyh/aniai 

Boys  under  i6  years   4,921  or  7.7  per  cent. 

Girls  under  15  years   4.174  or  6.6  per  cent. 

Women  and  girls  over  15  years 27,148  or  42.7  per  cent. 

Men  and  boys  over  16  years  27,305  or  43.0  per  cent. 

Total    63,548  or  loo.o  per  cent. 

In  1883^  1*055  blanks  were  issued,  and  ninety  per  cent 
replied.  Making  the  same  assumption  as  in  the  previous 
case,  we  have  the  following  results : 

Boys  under  16  years    5,90i  or  8.2  per  cent. 

Girls  under  15  years    4,772  or  6.7  per  cent. 

Women  and  girls  over  15  years 30,385  or  42.5  per  cent. 

Men  and  boys  over  16  years  30,451  or  42.6  per  cent. 

Total    71,509  or  lOO.o  per  cent. 

Comparing  the  per  cents  of  the  two  years  we  find : 

1881  1883  Inc.      Dec. 

P.ct.  P.ct.  P.ct.     P.ct. 

Boys  under  16  years  7.7  8.2  .5 

Girls  under  15  years  6.6  6.7  .1 

Women  and  girls  over  15  years.  ..  .  42.7  42.5  .  .  .2 

Men  and  boys  over   16  years 43.0  42.6  ..  .4 

Total    loo.o         loo.o  .6        .6 

This  shows  a  trifling  increase  in  child  labor  of  .6  per 
cent,  too  small  an  amount  to  be  of  importance,  when  the 
manner  of  investigation  is  considered. 

One  piece  of  statistical  work  done  at  this  time  will  bear 
quoting  from,  although  disputed  by  the  United  States  Cen- 
sus Department,  namely,  the  census  of  Philadelphia  manu- 
factures, taken  under  the  supervision  of  the  Hon.  Lorin 
Blodget  in  1882."*  This  showed  a  total  number  of  factory 
operatives  in  Philadelphia  of  242,483,  of  whom  60.7  per 

*See  Report  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics,  pp.  iv  and  97. 
*Census  of  the  Manufactures  of  Philadelphia,  1883. 


General  Factory  Acts  (1887-1893)-  53 

cent  were  men,  27.6  per  cent  women  and  11.7  per  cent 
youths  (i.  e.,  between  ten  and  fifteen  years  of  age.  The 
employments  using  the  largest  numbers  of  women  and  chil- 
dren were  the  textiles  (including  carpets  and  knit  goods), 
boots  and  shoes,  paper  boxes,  tailoring,  glassware  and  um- 
brellas. In  these  factories  the  women  largely  outnumbered 
the  men,  the  totals  being:  Men,  39,533;  women,  52,342; 
youths,   11,695. 

The  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics  for 
1886  stated  that  the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty 
to  Children  had  endeavored  to  prevent  the  employment  of 
children  under  the  age  prescribed  by  law,  but  that  it  had 
been  retarded  in  its  efforts  for  want  of  proper  authority  on 
the  part  of  its  agents  to  enter  and  inspect  factories.  Inquiry 
at  the  Philadelphia  office  of  the  society  secured  the  informa- 
tion that  various  cases  were  investigated,  frequently  at  the 
instigation  of  labor  union  men  who  did  not  want  children  to 
work  in  the  mills ;  that  the  complaints  were,  generally,  that 
the  children  were  under  age  (thirteen  years),  but  there  was 
one  case  where  a  child  worked  from  six  p.  m.  to  six  a.  m. ; 
that  there  were  no  prosecutions  by  the  society,  the  manu- 
facturers readily  complying  with  the  law,  in  many  cases 
saying  they  had  been  deceived  by  the  parents  as  to  the  child's 
age.  The  society  finally  had  copies  of  the  law  (of  1855) 
struck  off,  and  sent  them  to  all  the  factories  in  the  city. 
Numerous  letters  of  thanks  were  received  from  the  manu- 
facturers, stating  that  they  had  been  ignorant  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law,  but  would  hereafter  comply  with  them. 

The  increasing  strength  of  organized  labor  in  this 
state,  culminating  in  the  early  eighties,  was  first  directed  to 
measures  whose  purpose  was  to  insure  the  security  of  em- 
ployees' wages.  But  the  Knights  of  Labor,  whose  head- 
quarters were  then  in  Philadelphia,  in  its  first  public  decla- 
ration of  principles  in  1882,  further  advocated  the  adoption 
of  measures  to  provide  for  the  health  and  safety  of  those 
engaged  in  mining,  manufacturing  or  building  pursuits,  and 


54  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

prohibiting  the  employment  of  children  under  fourteen  years 
in  mines,  workshops  and  factories.  Later  the  same  organi- 
zation "made  factory  inspection  one  of  its  aims,  and  through 
persistent  and  intelligent  agitation  succeeded  in  securing 
satisfactory  legislation  in  several  states. ""^  But  though  the 
leaders  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  desired  the  establishment 
of  a  Department  of  Factory  Inspection,  the  rank  and  file  of 
its  membership  in  this  state — if  we  may  judge  from  the 
reports  of  their  legislative  committees  and  conventions — 
were  more  interested  in  semi-monthly  pay  laws,  mechanics' 
lien  laws,  convict  labor  legislation,  and  the  like. 

But  to  return  to  the  legislation  of  1887.  The  last 
measures  which  attempted  to  regulate  the  conditions  of  em- 
ployment of  women  and  children  zvithont  inspection  were 
passed  at  this  session.  After  so  many  years  of  trial,  in  which 
the  utter  uselessness  of  such  laws  had  been  demonstrated, 
one  does  not  know  whether  to  charge  the  legislators  with 
stupidity  or  insincerity. 

One  law  required  that  all  persons  or  firms  employing 
women  in  manufacturing,  mechanical  or  mercantile  estab- 
lishments must  provide  suitable  seats  for  such  employees  to 
use  when  not  "necessarily  engaged  in  the  active  duties  for 
which  they  are  employed,"  the  penalty  being  a  fine  of  $25 
to  $50.  The  other  prohibited  the  employment  of  any  child 
under  twelve  years  of  age  by  any  person,  firm  or  corpora- 
tion, to  do  any  work  in  any  mill,  manufactory  or  mine, 
under  penalty  of  $20  to  $100.  This  last  act,  it  will  be 
observed,  lowered  the  minimum  age  for  child  labor  from 
thirteen  years — where  it  had  been  placed  in  1849 — ^'^  twelve, 
but  widened  the  scope  of  the  statute. 

Factory  Inspection  Bill  of  188/. 

Besides  these  two  unimportant  measures  which  were 
passed,  a  very  important  bill  which  provided  for  factory 

'From  a  letter   from   Mr.   Watchorn,   ex-Chief  Factory  Inspector 
for  Pennsylvania. 


General  Factory  Acts  (1887-18^^).  55 

inspection  was  introduced  in  the  House.  It  was  a  long  and 
elaborate  measure,  differing  considerably  from  anything 
subsequently  proposed.  Whence  it  came,  is  difficult  to  find 
out.  A  Knights  of  Labor  legislative  convention  was  held 
at  Harrisburg  in  April  of  that  year,  and  the  report  of  their 
proceedings  shows  plainly  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  such  a  bill  had  been  introduced.  Various  persons 
who  were  interested  in  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1889  have 
asserted  that  they  were  unaware  that  such  a  bill  was  con- 
sidered in  1887. 

The  bill  failed  of  obtaining  a  constitutional  majority,''" 
although  the  vote  stood  66  to  49  in  its  favor.  This  is  but 
one  of  the  many  illustrations  that  might  be  given  of  the 
unwisdom  of  placing  such  a  clause  in  a  constitution,  unless 
it  is  coupled  with  another  clause  making  attendance  on 
each  daily  session  obligatory  upon  the  members,  and  the 
vote  of  all  members  present  to  be  counted.  Much  really 
valuable  legislation  has  been  thus  killed  by  the  stay-aways, 
who,  lacking  the  courage  of  their  convictions,  have  en- 
deavored in  this  manner  to  avoid  placing  themselves  on 
record. 

Factory  Inspection  Act  of  iSSq. 

Though  so  little  interest  seems  to  have  been  aroused  by 
the  factory  inspection  bill  of  1887,  quite  the  reverse  was 
the  case  in  1889. 

Mrs.  Florence  Kelley,  later  chief  factory  inspector  of 
Illinois,  and  now  secretary  of  the  National  Consumers' 
League;  Mrs.  Werner  (since  deceased),  wife  of  Mr.  Louis 
Werner,  editor  of  the  Tageblatt ;  Mrs.  Holman  and  a  few 
other  Philadelphia  ladies  organized  a  society  called  the 
Working  Women's  Association,  whose  chief  purpose  at  this 
time  was  to  support  the  bill.  In  a  letter  to  the  writer,  Mrs. 
Kelley  states  that  the  Working  Women's  Association  was 
a  very  small  body  that  winter,  and  that  the  daily  papers 

'A  majority  of  all  the  members  elected:    Art.  Ill,  sec.  4. 


56  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

gave  it  space  out  of  all  proportion  to  its  size.  But  certainly, 
if  the  society  is  to  be  measured  by  what  it  accomplished,  it 
deserves  a  large  place  in  the  story  of  the  beginning  of  Penn- 
sylvania factory  inspection.  Mrs.  Kelley,  Mrs.  Holman  and 
Mrs.  Werner  were  sent  to  Harrisburg  as  a  lobby,  and  the 
passage  of  the  bill  was  very  largely  due  to  their  efforts. 
They  appeared  before  the  Senate  and  House  committees  and 
did  a  great  deal  of  personal  work  with  the  members  of  both 
houses. 

Besides  this  society,  the  New  Century  Guild  indorsed 
the  bill,  and  was  represented  at  Harrisburg  by  Mrs.  Hol- 
man ;  and  the  New  Century  Club,  which  was  chiefly  inter- 
ested in  the  appointment  of  women  inspectors,  was  repre- 
sented by  Mrs.  Blankenburg  and  Mrs.  Charlotte  Pierce. 
The  Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union  gave  the  use  of 
its  rooms  at  Thirteenth  and  Arch  Streets  for  meetings  in 
the  interest  of  the  bill,  and  at  its  state  convention  indorsed 
the  measure. 

As  in  1887,  the  Knights  of  Labor  maintained  a  lobby 
at  Harrisburg,  which  gave  its  aid,  although  its  attention 
was  of  course  divided  between  that  and  other  labor  meas- 
ures. It  must  not  be  thought  that  all  the  lobbying  done 
was  in  favor  of  the  bill.  Various  manufacturers  and  mer- 
chants sent  a  strong  lobby,  who  did  all  in  their  power  to 
secure  its  defeat. 

The  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  January  24th, 
and  was  in  great  peril  during  its  stay  in  the  hands  of  the 
Committee  on  Corporations.  Mrs.  Holman  secured  a  letter 
from  the  ofificers  of  the  Atlantic  Sugar  Refining  Company 
to  the  Senator  who  had  the  deciding  vote  in  the  committee. 
After  reading  the  letter  he  voted  to  recommend  the  bill 
favorably.  The  next  danger  was  from  amendments.  As 
introduced,  it  limited  the  hours  of  labor  of  minors  to  ten 
hours  per  day,  but  this  was  amended  to  read  sixty  hours 
per  week,  a  much  weaker  provision,  and  in  the  House  the 
excellent  restriction  that  no  minor  should  clean  machinery 


General  Factory  Acts  (i88/-i8ps).  57 

while  in  motion  was  limited  to  minors  under  sixteen  years 
of  age.  The  bill  had  been  loosely  drawn,  and  some  other 
amendments  were  necessary  to  make  it  consistent  and  con- 
stitutional, and  on  the  third  reading  in  the  House  a  strong 
effort  was  made  to  defeat  the  bill  on  the  ground  of  uncon- 
stitutionality. But  its  defenders  succeeded  in  amending  it 
at  the  last  minute,  the  Senate  concurred,  and  with  the  Gov- 
ernor's signature,  May  20th,  Pennsylvania  received  her  first 
factory  inspection  law.  Five  other  states,  Massachusetts, 
New  Jersey,  Ohio,  New  York  and  Wisconsin,  had  preceded 
her  in  this  branch  of  legislation. 

This  act'''  forbade  the  employment  of  any  minor  in  fac- 
tories or  mercantile  establishments  for  more  than  sixty 
hours  per  week,  unless  for  the  purpose  of  making  necessary 
repairs.  No  child  under  twelve^  years  of  age  might  be  em- 
ployed in  factories  or  mercantile  establishments,  and  employ- 
ers must  keep  a  register  containing  the  name,  birthplace,  age 
and  residence  of  every  employee  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 
No  such  establishment  might  employ  any  child  under  sixteen 
unless  there  was  first  provided  and  placed  on  file  for  inspec- 
tion an  affidavit  made  by  the  parent  or  guardian,  or  by  the 
child,  if  he  or  she  had  no  parent  of  guardian,  stating  the  age, 
date  and  place  of  birth  of  said  child. 

Every  person,  firm  or  corporation  employing  women 
and  children,  or  either,  in  any  factory  or  mercantile  estab- 
lishment, should  keep  posted  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  every 
room  where  such  help  was  employed  a  printed  notice  stating 
the  number  of  hours  per  day  for  each  day  of  the  week 
required  of  such  persons,  and  in  every  room  where  children 
under  sixteen  years  of  age  were  employed  a  list  of  their 
names  with  their  ages. 

No  person,  firm  or  corporation  employing  less  than  ten^ 
women   or  children   was   deemed   a   factory  or   mercantile 

'P.  L.  1889,  No.  235,  p.  243. 

*In  the  factory  inspection  bill  of  1887,  it  was  thirteen. 

•In  the  factory  inspection  bill  of  1887  it  was  £z^e. 


58  Factory  Legiskition  in  Pennsylvania. 

establishment  within  the  meaning-  of  this  act.  The  Gov- 
ernor was  empowered  to  appoint,  by  and  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  a  factory  inspector,  at  a  salary  of  $1,500  per 
year,  whose  term  of  office  should  be  three  years.  The 
inspector  was  empowered  to  visit  and  inspect,  at  all  reason- 
able hours  and  as  often  as  practicable,  the  factories,  work- 
shops and  other  establishments  in  the  state  employing  women 
or  children,  where  the  manufacture  of  goods  was  carried 
on,  and  to  report  to  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  on  or 
before  the  30th  day  of  November  of  each  year  the  name  of 
the  factory,  the  number  of  such  hands  employed,  and  the 
number  of  working  hours  each  week.  It  should  also  be  the 
inspector's  duty  to  enforce  the  act  and  to  prosecute  all  viola- 
tions. The  necessary  expenses  of  the  inspector,  to  the 
amount  of  $2,500,  were  to  be  paid  from  the  funds  of  the 
state. 

It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  owner,  agent  or  lessee  of 
any  such  factory  or  mercantile  establishment  where  hoisting 
shafts  or  well-holes  were  used  to  cause  the  same  to  be  prop- 
erly and  substantially  enclosed  or  secured,  if  in  the  opinion 
of  the  inspector  it  was  necessary  to  protect  the  life  or  limbs 
of  those  employed ;  proper  trap  or  automatic  doors  must  be 
provided  at  all  elevator  ways ;  and,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
inspector,  automatic  shifters  or  other  mechanical  contri- 
vances for  throwing  on  or  off  belts  on  pulleys.  All  gearing 
and  belting  must  be  provided  with  proper  safeguards,  and 
no  minors  under  sixteen  years  of  age  might  clean  machinery 
while  in  motion. 

All  fatal  or  serious  accidents  occurring  to  employees 
in  the  factory  must  be  reported  by  the  employer  within  forty- 
eight  hours  to  the  factory  inspector,  stating  fully  the  cause 
of  the  injury. 

Suitable  wash-rooms  and  water-closets  must  be  pro- 
vided for  females,  and  the  water-closets  must  be  separate  and 
apart  from  those  used  by  the  males,  must  be  properly 
screened  and  ventilated,  and  at  all  times  kept  in  a  clean 
condition. 


General  Factory  Acts  (i88/-i8q^).  59 

Not  less  than  forty-five  minutes  were  to  be  devoted  to 
the  noonday  meal  in  factories,  unless  the  factory  inspector 
or  any  of  his  deputies  issued  a  permit  allowing  a  shorter 
mealtime,  which  permit  must  be  conspicuously  posted,  given 
for  good  cause,  and  revocable  at  any  time. 

If  the  inspector  found  that  the  heating,  lighting,  venti- 
lation or  sanitary  arrangements  of  any  shop  or  factory  were 
such  as  to  be  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  employees,  or 
that  the  means  of  egress  in  case  of  fire  or  other  disaster  was 
not  sufficient  or  in  accordance  with  all  the  requirements  of 
law,  or  that  the  machinery  was  so  located  as  to  be  dangerous 
to  employees  and  not  sufficiently  guarded,  or  that  structures 
filled  with  molten  metal  or  hot  liquid  were  not  properly 
guarded,  he  should  notify  the  proprietor  to  make  the  neces- 
sary alterations  within  sixty  days ;  and  if  it  were  not  done 
within  sixty  days,  or  within  such  time  as  the  alterations 
could  be  made  with  proper  diligence,  the  proprietor  or  agent 
should  be  deemed  guilty  of  violating  the  provisions  of  the 
act. 

The  inspector  v/as  empowered  to  appoint  six  deputies, 
one-half  of  whom  must  be  females  and  one  of  whom  might 
be  a  clerk  in  the  main  office,  and  whose  powers  were  the 
same  as  those  of  the  factory  inspector,  subject  to  his  super- 
vision, their  salaries  to  be  $1,000  per  year,  and  their  trav- 
eling expenses  paid  by  the  state.  He  was  to  divide  the  state 
into  districts,  assigning  the  deputies  to  the  districts  as  he 
saw  fit,  and  he  might  remove  any  of  the  deputies  at  any 
time.^*'  A  factory  inspector's  office  at  the  Capitol  was 
provided  for. 

A  printed  copy  of  the  act  must  be  posted  by  the  inspec- 
tor in  each  workroom  of  every  factory  affected  by  the  act, 
and  the  penalty  for  the  violation  of  the  act  was  a  fine  not 
exceeding  $100. 

"In  the  factory  inspection  bill  of  1887  the  chief  might  remove  his 
assistants,  but  only  for  cause. 


6o  Factory  Legislation  in  P cmisyh'ania. 

Operation  of  Act  of  i88p. 

The  two  years  intervening  between  the  sessions  of  1889 
and  1 89 1  w^ere  full  of  interest  to  those  concerned  in  factory 
inspection.  The  Legislature  had  failed  to  make  an  appro- 
priation for  the  expenses  of  the  department  or  for  the  salary 
of  the  chief  inspector.  In  spite  of  this  obstacle,  Governor 
Beaver  appointed  Mr.  William  H.  Martin  chief,  and  told 
him  to  go  ahead,  trusting  that  at  the  next  session  the  Legis- 
lature would  reimburse  him,  which  it  did. 

After  visiting  the  departments  of  factory  inspection  in 
Massachusetts  and  New  York,  Mr.  Martin  established  his 
office  in  Harrisburg  and  appointed  his  first  deputy,  Miss 
Mary  Wagner,  who  was  assigned  to  the  position  of  office 
deputy — a  position  she  still  holds.  Twenty-three  blank 
forms  for  enforcing  the  different  provisions  of  the  act  were 
drawn  up  and  sent  to  as  many  manufacturers  as  they  could 
locate  (the  report  does  not  mention  mercantile  establish- 
ments in  this  connection),  numbering  about  7,000. 

Mr.  Martin  districted  the  state  according  to  its  three 
military  divisions  and  appointed  the  other  five  deputies, 
assigning  one  male  and  one  female  deputy  to  each  district, 
though,  as  Miss  Wagner  was  employed  in  the  office,  there 
was  left  only  one  deputy  for  the  outside  work  in  the  middle 
district.  The  number  of  inspectors  was  entirely  inadequate 
to  the  work  to  be  performed,  but  it  was  at  least  a  beginning, 
and  the  department  deserves  credit  for  the  work  accom- 
plished under  so  great  difficulty. 

The  inspectors  generally  met  with  courteous  treatment 
on  the  part  of  employers.  Only  two  arrests  were  made 
between  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  department, 
about  March  i,  1890,  and  the  date  of  the  first  report,  No- 
vember 30th.  One  of  these  cases  was  settled  without  coming 
into  court,  and  the  other,  the  prosecution  of  a  firm  of  Pitts- 
burg glass  manufacturers,  accused  of  employing  children 
under  age  and  of  failing  to  keep  records,  etc.,  was  decided 
in  favor  of  the  commonwealth. 


Gmeral  Factory  Acts  (r88/-i8pj).  6i 

In  order  to  know  what  establishments  were  under  the 
authority  of  the  department,  Mr.  Martin  was  obhged  to  ask 
the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  word  "children"  in  the  phrase  "persons  who  are  women 
or  children."  The  opinion  was  given  by  the  Deputy  Attor- 
ney General,  Mr.  John  F.  Sanderson.  As  the  act  regulated 
the  hours  of  labor  of  all  minors  and  the  conditions  of  em- 
ployment of  females,  the  only  logical  construction  of  the 
clause  would  seem  to  be  that  the  act  applied  to  all  factories 
employing  ten  women  or  minors,  making  children  mean  all 
under  twenty-one  years.  But  Mr.  Sanderson,  after  de- 
claring that  "there  is  no  general  and  definite  legal  limit  to 
the  age  of  childhood,"  decided  that  "from  a  consideration 
of  the  general  scope  and  purpose  of  the  act"  the  term  chil- 
dren in  that  clause  meant  those  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 
This  left  a  gap  in  the  application  of  the  act  between  the 
ages  of  sixteen  and  twenty-one.  A  factory  might  employ 
ten  persons  of  that  age,  but  if  it  did  not  also  employ  ten  who 
were  either  adult  females  or  between  the  ages  of  twelve  and 
sixteen  the  inspectors  could  not  enforce  the  act  within  that 
factory. 

Mr.  Martin  also  requested  an  opinion  as  to  the  author- 
ity of  his  department  in  the  matter  of  fire-escapes,  and 
received  the  following  answer,  this  time  from  the  Attorney 
General,  Mr.  W.  S.  Kirkpatrick.  The  jurisdiction  of  the 
department  was  confined  to  the  establishments  coming  under 
the  act,  and  in  those  establishments  a  certificate  granted  by 
the  fire  commissioners  was  conclusive  that  such  person  had 
complied  with  the  requirements  of  law  respecting  fire- 
escapes.  However,  if  such  escapes  were  out  of  repair,  the 
inspector  should  require  them  to  be  put  in  order. 

In  1890  a  Democratic  Governor,  Robert  E.  Pattison, 

'was   elected  in   Pennsylvania,   and   on  June    i,    1891,   Mr. 

Martin,  who  had  been  appointed  by  a  Republican  Governor 

in  1889  for  a  term  of  three  years,  according  to  the  act,  was 


62  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania, 

dismissed  from  office,  and  Mr,  Robert  Watchorn^^  appointed 
in  his  stead.  Mr.  Watchorn's  appointment  was  sent  to  the 
Senate  May  27th,  and  rejected  by  that  body,  which  was 
RepubHcan,  whereupon  the  Governor  commissioned  him  to 
hold  office  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate — 
an  extraordinary  one — ending  November  11,  1891.  The 
day  after  its  adjournment  the  Governor  renewed  Mr. 
Watchorn's  appointment,  to  continue  until  the  end  of  the 
next  session,  that  of  1893.  At  that  session  Governor  Patti- 
son  again  sent  in  the  same  appointment  for  confirmation, 
whereupon  the  Senate,  still  Republican,  appointed  an  inves- 
tigating committee,  and  on  its  reporting  the  facts  given 
above  passed  the  following  resolution :  "That  an  action  of 
the  Governor  relative  to  the  office  of  factory  inspector  has 
been  derogatory  to  the  rights  of  the  Senate  as  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  government,  and  has  not  been  in  accordance 
with  the  constitutional  requirements  relative  to  appointments 
which  he  is  authorized  by  section  8,  Article  IV,  of  the 
constitution  to  make." 

Mr.  Watchorn's  nomination  as  factory  inspector  was 
never  confirmed.  In  the  light  of  this  partisan  opposition 
it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  personal  triumph  for  Mr.  Watchorn 
that,  on  the  completion  of  his  four-year  term  of  office,  the 
last  Legislature  which  had  refused  to  confirm  should  have 
passed  a  unanimous  vote  of  congratulation  on  the  success 
of  his  administration,  accompanied  by  the  gift  of  his  official 
desk  and  chair.  His  pay  was  never  suspended ;  in  fact,  at 
the  end  of  the  first  two  years  his  salary  was  doubled. 

Fa-ctory  Inspector's  Reports  for  i8gi-i8g2. 

An  amendatory  factory  inspection  measure  came  near 
passing  in  1891  which  would  have  restored  the  minimum 
age  limit  from  twelve  to  thirteen  years,  would  have  laid 
down  more  stringent  requirements  for  the  safety  of  eleva- 
tors, and  would  have  doubled  the  number  of  deputy  inspec- 

"Now  Commissioner  of  Immigration  at  the  Port  of  New  York. 


General  Factory  Acts  (1887-1893).  63 

tors.  But  improvements  in  the  general  factory  law  were 
not  to  come  till  the  following  session,  and  they  can  best  be 
understood  in  the  light  of  the  factory  inspector's  reports  for 
1 89 1  and  1892,  as  the  changes  made  by  the  amendments  of 
1893  were  suggested  in  those  reports. 

Mr.  Watchorn  recommended  limiting  the  hours  of  labor 
of  women  as  well  as  minors,  and  placing  that  limit  at  ten 
hours  per  day  instead  of  sixty  per  week.  In  1892  he  re- 
ported that  "Many  employers  have  adopted  the  relay  system, 
or,  in  other  words,  they  work  two  sets  of  minors.  When 
one  lot  have  worked  their  sixty  hours  they  are  then  dis- 
missed for  the  week,  while  the  adults,  men  and  women 
alike,  are  continued  at  work  overtime."^^ 

He  also  favored  an  abatement  of  four  hours  on  Satur- 
day, concerning  which  he  says :  "The  change  on  Saturday 
is  rather  a  radical  one,  but  it  is  very  necessary,  for  so  great 
is  the  desire  for  a  Saturday  short  day  that  in  very  many 
places  fifteen  or  thirty  minutes  are  added  to  the  first  five 
days,  and  special  requests  for  the  shortening  of  the  meal- 
time each  day  are  made,  in  order  that  fifty-four  or  fifty-five 
hours  may  be  worked  at  the  conclusion  of  Friday's  work."^^ 

Among  his  suggestions  were :  Raising  the  age  at  which 
children  might  be  admitted  from  twelve  to  fourteen ;  includ- 
ing laundries  under  the  act;  abolishing  the  section  which 
limited  the  act  to  places  employing  ten  women  or  children; 
increasing  the  salaries  of  deputies  from  $1,000  to  $1,200, 
and  the  number  of  deputies  from  six  to  twelve. 

He  complained  that  the  duties  of  the  factory  inspectors 
conflicted  with  those  of  the  fire  commissioners,  and  sug- 
gested that  the  factory  inspectors  should  either  be  required 
to  report  to  the  fire  commissioners  or  be  given  full  authority 
in  all  establishments  coming  under  their  jurisdiction.  That 
the  latter  alternative  was  altogether  the  better  one  had  been 

"Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1892,  p.  14. 

"Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics  Report  for  1891,  p.  E  83. 


64  Factory  Legislation  in  P ennsylvanias, 

shown  in  the  recent  case  of  Commonwealth  vs.  Emsley,^* 
on  indictment  for  not  providing  sufficient  fire-escapes  on  a 
factory. 

Says  Judge  Mitchell,  who  rendered  the  opinion :  "It 
is  conceded  that  the  defendant  has  not  complied  with  these 
provisions  [which  he  had  already  quoted]  of  the  law,  either 
in  the  number  of  external  escapes  or  the  mode  of  fastening 
the  interior  chains  and  ropes.  But  he  has  had  his  premises 
examined,  and  has  received  a  certificate  of  approval  from 
the  Department  of  Public  Safety,  which,  under  the  present 
charter  of  the  city  [Philadelphia]  exercises  the  powers  of 
the  former  Board  of  Fire  Commissioners. 

"We  have,  therefore,  to  consider  the  effect  of  such  a 
certificate.  .  .  .  It  is  plain  that  the  law  intends  to 
create  a  tribunal  whose  duty  it  is  to  see  to  its  proper  enforce- 
ment at  once,  and  to  settle  in  advance  the  sufficiency  of  the 
compliance  with  its  requirements,  without  waiting  for  un- 
fortunate accidents  to  call  attention  thereto.  Again,  the  law 
looks  to  uniform  and  systematic  administration,  so  that  the 
citizen  may  know  when  he  has  complied  with  his  duty  and 
may  rest  secure.  .  .  .  But  whatever  the  legislative 
reasons  may  have  been,  the  language  is  too  clear  to  admit  of 
any  other  construction  .  .  .  than  that  the  certificate  is 
a  full  defense." 

In  rendering  a  decision  in  another  fire-escape  case,  that 
of  Cotnmoiiufcaith  vs.  Kitchenman,'^^  a  year  later,  Judge 
Finletter  added  his  testimony  to  the  lax  enforcement  of  the 
law  in  Philadelphia.  The  decision  itself  is  not  important  in 
this  connection,  but  what  he  says  concerning  the  violation 
of  the  law  is  worthy  of  note. 

"Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  Philadelphia  County.  Opinion  de- 
livered August  II,  1888,  by  Mitchel,  J.,  Judges  Hare  and  Fell  concur- 
ring.    Philadelphia  Reports,  Vol.  XIX,  p.  546. 

"Court  of  Common  Pleas  No.  3,  Philadelphia  County.  Opinion 
delivered  July  i,  1889,  by  Finletter,  P.  J.  Philadelphia  Reports,  Vol. 
XIX.  p.  564. 


General  Factory  .lets  ( i88/-i8pjj.  65 

"There  never  was  a  greater  necessity  and  public  de- 
mand for  legislation  than  for  the  act  of  June  i,  1885.  The 
causes  which  led  to  this  enactment,  its  objects  and  purposes, 
sternly  require  its  rigid  enforcement.  That  it  has  not  been 
sufficiently  complied  with  and  enforced  is  evident  upon  all 
sides.  It  is  four  years  since  it  went  into  operation,  and  an 
honest  desire  to  comply  with  its  provisions  on  the  part  of 
owners,  or  a  vigorous  enforcement  by  the  authorities,  would 
have  left  no  unsafe  places  in  this  city.  When  the  next  great 
holocaust  occurs  we  will  be  aroused  to  a  sense  of  violated 
law  and  duty,  and  a  few  more  fire-escapes  wall  be  erected." 

But  to  return  to  the  factory  inspector's  report.  There 
was  one  arrest  under  the  factory  inspection  law  in  1891,  that 
of  Mr.  Hugh  French,  of  Philadelphia,  owner  of  a  building 
sublet  to  various  tenants,  who  manufactured  cotton  and 
woolen  waste. 

The  sanitary  conditions  of  this  factory  were  thus  de- 
scribed by  Air.  Watchorn :  "The  closets  are  situated  in  a 
back  yard,  a  sort  of  barricaded  cow  stable,  and  the  employees 
(many  of  whom  are  women  and  girls)  in  order  to  use  the 
same  have  to  come  down  several  flights  of  stairs,  from  a 
room  heated  to  from  70  to  90  degrees,  and  traverse  a  back 
yard  which  is  very  often  wet,  muddy  and  unfit  for  passage. 
In  addition  to  the  above,  the  only  wash  room  he  has 
provided  is  a  solitary  hydrant  in  the  same  back  yard,  where 
scores  of  girls  must  take  their  turns  to  get  a  wash." 

The  case  was  brought  before  Judge  Fell,^*'  who  decided 
that  Mr.  French  as  owner  of  the  building  was  not  amenable, 
but  that  his  tenants  were.  The  tenants  carried  out  the 
orders  of  the  department  without  further  litigation ;  and 
this  decision  as  to  responsibility  resting  on  the  "owner  in 
possession" — except  as  to  fire-escapes,  the  erection  of  which 
had  been  specifically  placed  on  the  owner  in  fee  or  for  life 
of  the  building  used  as  a  factory,  by  the  act  of  1885 — has 
governed  the  department  ever  since. 

"See  Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1892,  pp.  4  and  5. 


66  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

In  1892  several  cases  were  brought  into  court.  The 
department  had  some  trouble  in  securing  the  service  of  war- 
rants, and  two  Philadelphia  police  magistrates  dismissed  the 
cases  in  the  face  of  positive  evidence  of  the  guilt  of  the 
employers.  But  the  general  effect  of  the  prosecutions  was  to 
secure  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  The  practice  was  then 
begun,  and  has  since  continued,  of  withdrawing  suits  when- 
ever the  employer  w^oukl  agree  to  pay  costs  and  would  give  a 
written  promise  to  obey  the  law  in  future. 

Age  Limit  Applied  to  Elevator  Boys  (i8p^). 

The  great  number  of  elevator  accidents  noted  in  the 
reports  of  the  factory  inspector  were  no  doubt  largely  instru- 
mental in  securing  the  strengthening  of  the  clauses  providing 
for  automatic  doors,  etc.,  in  the  amendatory  bill  of  1891. 
And  the  subject  was  again  brought  up  in  1893,  in  an  act 
passed  forbidding  the  employment  of  any  minor  under  the 
age  of  fourteen  in  and  about  elevators. 

Amendatory  Factory  Act  (i8pj). 

Another  attempt,  this  time  successful,  was  made  to 
amend  the  factory  act  of  1889.  Like  the  act  of  1889  and 
the  amendatory  bill  of  1891,  this  new  measure  originated  in 
the  Senate;  and,  in  general,  it  followed  the  suggestions  of 
Mr.  Watchorn.  As  passed  by  the  Senate  the  bill  limited 
the  hours  of  labor  for  minors  and  females  to  ten  hours  a 
day,  and  forbade  the  employment  of  children  under  fourteen 
years  of  age ;  but  while  the  bill  was  before  the  House  com- 
mittee a  deputation  representing  the  manufacturers  of  Phila- 
delphia appeared  against  the  bill,  and  succeeded  in  having 
the  regulation  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  women  stricken  out 
and  the  age  at  which  children  might  begin  work  changed  to 
thirteen  years.  As  finally  passed  the  act  enlarged  the  scope 
of  the  act  of  1889  t>y  adding  laundries  and  renovating  estab- 
lishments, and  limited  the  number  of  hours  which  a  minor 


General  Factory  Acts  (1887-18^^).  6y 

might  work  in  any  one  day  to  twelve.  It  raised  the  age  of 
admission  from  twelve  to  thirteen  years,  extended  the  act  to 
factories  and  mercantile  establishments  employing  five  per- 
sons (instead  of  ten),  increased  the  salary  of  the  chief 
inspector  from  $1,500  to  $3,000,  the  deputies  from  $1,000 
to  $1,200,  and  the  allowance  for  expenses  of  the  department 
from  $2,500  to  $4,000. 

The  factory  inspectors  were  given  power  to  order  the 
erection  of  fire-escapes,  regardless  of  the  exemption  granted 
by  any  other  authorities;  but,  unfortunately,  in  the  clause 
concerning  fire-escapes  and  the  guarding  of  machinery  only 
factories  and  workshops  were  mentioned,  mercantile  estab- 
lishments being  omitted. 

Operation  of  Factory  Act  of  i8p3.  "  1 

In  the  enforcement  of  this  new  law  Mr.  Watchorn  exer- 
cised some  discretionary  power.  There  were  at  the  time  of 
its  passage  about  5,000  children  legally  employed  between 
the  ages  of  twelve  and  thirteen,  and  he  decided  not  to  order 
their  discharge,  as  within  a  few  months  all  would  reach  the 
legal  age,  but  simply  to  forbid  any  further  engaging  of 
children  under  thirteen  years  of  age.  This  was  no  doubt  a 
wise  decision. 

During  the  year  1893  the  legal  status  of  factory  inspec- 
tion received  still  further  development.  Mr.  Watchorn 
appealed  to  the  Attorney  General,  Mr.  W.  U.  Hensel,  as  to 
the  meaning  of  "usually  employed"  in  the  phrase  "In  which 
employees  or  operatives  are  usually  employed  at  work  in  the 
third  or  any  higher  story,"  from  the  fire-escape  act  of  1885, 
He  had  endeavored  to  enforce  the  act  in  factories  where  the 
third  floor  was  used  for  storing  stock,  and  where,  "in  order 
to  get  the  stock  to  and  from  the  rooms,  it  is  necessary  for 
several  people  to  be  constantly  going  to  and  from  said 
rooms,  and  remain  there  for  stated  intervals  arranging  stock 
or  goods,"  but  in  several  such  places  the  owners  had  claimed 
to  be  exempt  from  the  act.    The  Attorney  General's  answei 


68  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

was  that  such  places  were  not  exempt,  but  were  "unques- 
tionably within  the  terms  of  the  acts  of  1885  ^"d  1889." 

The  new  factory  act  of  1893  had  been  as  badly  drawn 
as  its  predecessor,  and  much  needless  friction  was  caused 
by  the  difficulty  of  determining  what  places  were  amenable. 
The  title  is,  "An  act  to  regulate  the  employment  and  pro- 
vide for  the  safety  of  women  and  children  in  manufacturing 
establishments,  mercantile  industries,  laundry  or  renovating 
establishments,"  etc. ;  but  section  4  declares  that  "No  person, 
firm  or  corporation  employing  less  than  five  pei'sons  shall 
be  deemed  a  factory,  manufacturing  or  mercantile  establish- 
ment within  the  meaning  of  this  act." 

Mr.  Watchorn  instructed  the  deputies  to  inspect  all 
places  coming  under  the  definition  in  section  4,  and  was 
immediately  met  by  a  large  number  of  protests,  which  he 
submitted  to  the  Attorney  General.  In  view  of  the  restricted 
title  of  the  act,  Mr.  Hensel  considered  the  inspector's  author- 
ity to  be  limited  to  establishments  employing  more  than  five 
women  or  children. ^'^  Some  of  the  protesting  firms  em- 
ployed five  or  more  minors  between  the  ages  of  sixteen  and 
twenty-one,  and  in  these  cases  he  overruled  the  decision  of 
his  predecessor  and  decided  that  children  meant  minors  of 
either  sex.  The  omission  of  mercantile  establishments  from 
the  clause  giving  the  inspectors  authority  over  fire-escapes, 
was  interpreted  to  exempt  such  places  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  department  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  Watchorn's  suggestions  for  further  legislation  in 
the  report  of  1894  (p.  19)  were: 

First.  The  employment  of  children  to  be  contingent  on 
a  standard  of  intelligence  instead  of  attested  age,  and  if  this 
could  not  be  done,  then  the  minimum  to  be  fourteen  years. 

Second.  Provisions  to  be  made  for  placing  "sweat 
shops"  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  factory  department. 

"Since  section  4  which  he  was  interpreting  exempted  places  em- 
ploying less  than  five,  why  did  he  begin  with  more  than  five?  What 
became  of  the  place  employing  five? 


General  Factory  Acts  (i88y-i8gs)-  69 

Third.  An  increase  of  at  least  three  inspectors  to  prose- 
cute this  additional  work,  with  proportionate  increase  of 
appropriation. 

Fourth.   Saturday  half-holiday. 

Fifth.  Amendment  of  semi-monthly  pay  law. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation   (1895-1901). 

Sweat  Shop  Act  of  18^5. 

The  legislative  session  of  1895  is  notable  for  the  large 
number  of  labor  bills  introduced  and  defeated.  One  impor- 
tant measure,  however,  was  passed :  the  act  commonly 
known  as  the  "Sweat  Shop  Act."  In  the  summer  of  1894 
the  Factory  Inspection  Department  undertook  the  work  of 
investigating  the  sweat  shops  of  Philadelphia,  in  order  to 
obtain  necessary  information  before  suggesting  legislation 
at  the  next  session.  The  act  of  1893,  in  reducing  the  number 
of  women  and  minors  necessary  to  constitute  a  factory,  had 
brought  some  of  the  larger  sweatshops  under  the  law.  Miss 
Mary  O'Reilly  at  that  time  had  charge  of  the  district  con- 
taining most  of  those  places,  and  when  the  investigation  was 
undertaken  it  was  intrusted  to  her,  assisted  by  two  other 
deputies,  Mr.  Donohue  and  Mr.  O'Keefe. 

The  sweat  shop  evil  has  been  so  often  and  so  vividly 
described  that  perhaps  nothing  need  be  said  as  to  the  condi- 
tions they  found.  "The  part  of  the  city  wherein  most  of 
these  shops  exist  is  south  of  Pine  Street  and  North  of 
Washington  Avenue,  and  between  Tenth  Street  and  the 
Delaware  River."^  The  results  of  their  investigation  were 
widely  published  in  the  newspapers,  public  opinion  was 
aroused  on  the  subject,  and  the  legislation  of  1895  was  the 
result.  The  bill  passed  both  Senate  and  House  within  a 
month,  without  argument  and  with  only  one  dissenting  vote. 

The  act  forbade  the  use  of  any  room  or  apartment  in 
any  tenement  or  dwelling  house,  except  by  the  immediate 
members  of  the  family  living  therein,  for  the  manufacture  of 

'Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1894,  p.  24. 

(70) 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  ( i8q^-ic)0i).        71 

coats,  vests,  trousers,  knee-pants,  overalls,  cloaks,  hats,  caps, 
suspenders,  jerseys,  blouses,  waists,  waist-bands,  underwear, 
neckwear,  furs,  fur  trimming's,  fur  garments,  shirts,  hosiery, 
purses,  feathers,  artificial  flowers,  cigarettes  or  cigars.  No 
person,  firm  or  corporation  might  hire  any  person  to  work  in 
anv  room  or  apartment  in  any  rear  building,  or  building  in 
rear  of  a  tenement  or  dwelling  house,  at  making,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  any  of  the  articles  above  mentioned,  without  first 
obtaining  a  vrritten  permit  from  the  factory  inspector  or  one 
of  his  deputies,  stating  the  maximum  number  of  persons 
allowed  to  be  employed  therein.  This  permit  must  not  be 
granted  until  after  an  inspection  of  the  premises  was  made, 
and  might  be  revoked  whenever  the  health  of  the  community 
or  of  those  so  employed  required  it.  It  must  be  framed  and 
posted  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  room,  or  in  one  of  the 
rooms  to  which  it  related.  Every  person,  firm,  company  or 
corporation  contracting  for  the  manufacture  of  any  of  the 
articles  mentioned  in  this  section,  or  giving  out  the  incom- 
plete material  from  which  they  were  to  be  made,  or  to  be 
wholly  or  partially  finished,  must  keep  a  written  register  of 
the  names  and  addresses  of  all  persons  to  whom  such  work 
was  given  to  be  made,  or  with  whom  they  might  have  con- 
tracted to  do  the  same ;  and  this  register  was  to  be  produced 
for  inspection  and  a  copy  thereof  furnished  on  demand  of 
the  inspector. 

The  proviso  was  added,  that  seamstresses  might  be 
employed  by  any  family  to  manufacture  articles  for  fam- 
ily use.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  cubic  feet  of  air  space 
to  each  person,  and  sufficient  means  of  ventilation,  must  be 
provided  in  every  workroom  coming  under  the  act,  the 
inspector  being  authorized  to  notify  the  owner,  agent  or 
lessee  of  the  need  for  such  provision  and  to  prosecute  if 
such  notification  was  not  complied  with  in  ten  days. 

The  appointment  of  eight  additional  deputies,  with  the 
same  power  and  compensations  as  those  already  appointed, 
was  authorized  by  this  act. 


72  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Any  person  who  violated  any  of  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  or  who  suffered  or  permitted  any  of  the  articles  herein- 
before described  to  be  made  in  violation  of  its  provisions, 
should  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  convic- 
tion should  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $500  or 
less  than  $100  for  each  offense. 

Operation  of  Act  of  i8p§. 

Before  this  act  went  into  effect  (April  11,  1895)  there 
was  a  change  of  administration  in  the  Factory  Inspection 
Department,  Governor  Hastings  having  appointed  Mr.  James 
Campbell  chief  inspector.  Of  the  eight  additional  deputies 
authorized  by  the  act,  four  were  assigned  to  the  sweat  shop 
section  of  Philadelphia.  They  began  w^ork  in  the  second 
police  district,"  having  1)een  furnished  with  interpreters  by 
the  Director  of  Public  Safety.  In  this  district  they  visited 
three  hundred  places  and  found  that  about  ninety  per  cent 
were  in  violation  of  the  law ;  and  many  others  w^ere  discov- 
ered where,  from  a  sanitary  point  of  view,  the  inspector's 
work  was  equally  necessary,  but  where  no  workers  were 
employed  outside  the  family.  In  the  third  district^  tv/o 
hundred  and  twenty  shops  were  found,  besides  numerous 
wholesalers  who  distributed  the  work  to  operators. 

As  in  the  law  of  1893,  some  discretion  was  exercised 
in  the  enforcement  of  the  act.  The  ignorance  and  helpless- 
ness of  those  who  Avere  violating  the  law  made  "an  imme- 
diate enforcement  appear  inexpedient,  if  not  unjust,"*  and 
therefore  some  time  was  allov/ed  for  the  necessary  changes 
of  quarters  to  be  made." 

In  reply  to  a  request  from  the  chief  inspector,  the 
Deputy   Attorney   Generr.l   renrlered   an   opinion  as  to  the 

'j.  r..  Second,  Third  and  Fourth  Wards:  Broad  Street  to  Delaware 
River,  and  South  Street  to  Wharton  Street. 

v.  c,  Fifth  Ward:  Seventh  Street  to  Delaware  River  and  Chestnut 
Street  to  South  Street. 

*Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1895,  p.  39. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  ( iSp^-ipoi).        73 

meaning  of  the  phrase  "Any  room  or  apartment  in  any  rear 
building-,  or  building  in  rear  of  a  tenement  or  dwelling 
house."  After  stating  that  the  act  was  not  specific  in  its 
definition  of  the  term  "rear  building,"  and  that  the  depart- 
ment must  adopt  some  uniform  rule  for  the  enforcement  of 
the  law,  he  suggested  that  "Under  the  term  'rear  building' 
might  be  included  all  such  rooms  or  apartments  as  are  con- 
nected with  the  tenement  or  dwelling  house  where  the  family 
resides,  but  which  are  separated  from  the  other  part  of 
the  house  by  walls,  partitions,  or  doors.  A  building  in  the 
rear  must  be  held  to  be  one  that  is  built  separate  and  apart 
from  the  tenement  or  dwelling  house  proper,  and  in  the  rear 
of  it." 

An  opinion  was  also  asked  as  to  the  authority  of  the 
department  in  the  matter  of  condemning  unsafe  buildings, 
and  the  answer  was  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  act  giving 
the  department  the  right  to  condemn  them,  although  the 
inspector  might  call  the  attention  of  those  in  charge  to  the 
defects. 

The  sweat  shop  act  said  nothing  as  to  the  authority  of 
the  inspectors  to  compel  the  erection  of  fire-escapes  on  the 
buildings  placed  under  their  supervision  by  the  act.  The 
Deputy  Attorney  General  decided,  "In  the  absence  of  more 
specific  legislation  upon  this  subject,  I  would  not  feel  war- 
ranted in  advising  you  to  instruct  your  deputies  to  have 
fire-escapes  erected  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1895." 
He  suggested  an  indirect  way  of  obtaining  the  desired  result, 
which  was  to  Avithhold  the  permit  provided  for  in  the  act 
until  the  fire-escape  had  been  erected. 

Szveat  Shop  Acts  of  i8gy,  i8pp,  ipoi. 

The  serious  defect  in  the  act  of  1895  was  found  to  lie 
in  the  clause  italicised  in  Section  i,  which  read:  "Be  it 
enacted,  etc.,  That  no  room  or  apartment  in  any  tene- 
ment or  dwelling  house  shall  be  used,  except  by  the  imme- 
diate members  of  the  family  living  therein,  for  the  manu- 


74  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

facture  of  coats,  vests,  trousers,"  etc.,  etc.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  the  attempts  at  evasion,  by  means  of  this  unfor- 
tunate exception,  were  many  and  various.  And  where  the 
law  was  enforced,  these  exempted  family  shops  "work  a 
wrong  and  injustice  on  those  whom  the  law  has  compelled 
to  take  workshops.  The  family  operator,  and  there  are 
many  of  them,  with  but  one  rent  to  pay,  makes  the  offer  to 
dealer  to  make  garments  at  a  reduced  price.  The  keen  com- 
petition that  this  makes  interferes  considerably  with  the 
execution  of  the  law,  .  .  [and  it]  also  tends  to  dis- 
courage those  who  desire  and  make  the  effort  to  comply 
w'ith  the  law's  demands."^  In  his  report  for  1896,  Inspector 
Campbell  recommended  that  this  family  exemption  clause 
be  stricken  out  by  the  incoming  Legislature  (1897),  and 
this  request  was  complied  with. 

But  there  was  still  one  thing  desired  to  make  the  sweat 
shop  law  complete,  namely,  that  the  inspectors  should  have 
the  power  to  confiscate  and  destroy  all  clothing  that  was 
being  made  in  unhealthful  or  unsanitary  places,  and  espe- 
cially where  there  were  contagious  or  infectious  diseases. 
This  having  been  recommended  by  Inspector  Campbell,  in 
his  report  for  1898,  and  its  importance  forcibly  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  next  Legislature,  such  addition  was 
made  in  1899. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  measure  a  letter" 
of  recent  date  from  former  Deputy  Inspector  Milligan, 
whose  work  had  been  so  largely  in  a  sweat  shop  district, 
to  Inspector  Campbell  was  offered  in  evidence.  This 
letter  advocated  the  plan  of  confiscating  goods  made  in 
violation  of  the  law.  The  writer  held  that  competition  had 
"made  some  of  the  manufacturers  indifferent  as  to  how  or 
where  clothing  is  made,  so  they  can  have  it  done  cheaply." 
He  then  pointed  out  the  weakness  in  the  existing  legisla- 

■Report  of  Deputy  Inspector  Milligan :    Factory  Inspector's  Report 
for  1896,  p.  25. 

'For  this  debate,  and  the  letter,  see  Legislative  Reecord,  pp.  2113-14. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  (iSpyipoi).        75 

tion.  "It  might  be  said  there  are  penalties  now  imposed  by 
law ;  true  there  are,  but  they  are  cumbersome.  Information 
must  be  lodged,  warrants  issued ;  against  whom  ?  Most 
likely  the  poor  operator,  who  is  the  least  of  the  offenders. 
He  is  arrested,  held  in  bail  for  court,  or  perhaps  sent  to  jail 
in  default,  while  the  clothing  he  has  made  in  violation  of 
law  is  returned  to  the  manufacturer,  who  puts  it  upon  the 
market,  scattering  with  it  disease  and  vermin;  while  the 
operator  suffers,  he,  the  manufacturer,  seeks  out  others, 
who  work  under  the  same  vile  conditions.  Should  the  manu- 
facturer be  arrested,  he  enters  bail ;  with  the  overcrowded 
condition  of  our  courts  his  trial  is  delayed.  The  witness 
when  called,  after  this  long  delay,  with  only  convenient 
memories  at  time  of  trial,  and  no  regard  for  truth,  there  is 
no  conviction,  and  the  purposes  of  the  law  are  not  accom- 
plished. .  .  .  Should  he  [the  manufacturer]  be  made 
to  pay  a  fine,  many  of  these  violators  of  the  law  would  pay 
the  same,  and  continue  the  work  in  the  old  way  for  the 
money  that  is  in  it.  The  confiscation  of  goods  would  the 
more  quickly  and  surely  bring  all  concerned  to  a  realization 
that  the  law  must  be  respected.  .  .  .  The  lesson  taught 
would  make  all  interested  cleaner  and  better  citizens." 

How  much  needed  this  "lesson"  was,  we  learn  from  the 
factory  inspector's  report  for  1899.  Between  July  i,  1898, 
and  October  31,  1899,  sixty  places  were  found  in  which  it 
was  necessary  to  seize  and  destroy  clothing  that  was  being 
made  where  contagious  diseases  prevailed. 

The  act  of  1901  made  no  changes  except  to  provide 
specifically  as  to  hearings  and  appeal. 

Bakeshop  Acts  of  iSgy,  1901. 

No  sooner  had  workshops — generally  known  as  "sweat 
shops" — been  brought  within  the  oversight  and  control  of 
the  Department  of  Factory  Inspection,  in  1895,  than  Inspec- 
tor Campbell  began  to  urge'^  that  the  bakeshops  of  the  state 

'See  Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1896,  p.  7. 


76  FcKtory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

should  be  similarly  placed.  The  need  of  such  legislation 
had  long  been  apparent,  not  only  to  the  department,  but  to 
all  who  had  made  even  the  most  casual  acquaintance  with 
the  bakeshop  evils. 

What  these  evils  were  is  perhaps  best  depicted  in  the 
bakeshop  law  of  1897,  passed  in  immediate  response  to  the 
recommendations^  of  Inspector  Campbell  and  others. 

"Section  i.  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  no  employee  shall 
be  required,  permitted  or  suffered  to  work  in  a  biscuit,  bread 
or  cake  bakery,  confectionery  establishment  more  than  six 
(6)  days  in  any  one  week,  said  week  to  commence  on  Sun- 
day not  before  six  o'clock  post  meridian,  and  to  terminate 
at  the  corresponding  time  of  Saturday  of  the  same  week. 
No  person  under  the  age  of  eighteen  (18)  years  shall  be 
employed  in  any  bakeshop  between  the  hours  of  nine  (9) 
o'clock  at  night  and  five  (5)  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Ex- 
cepted from  this  rule  shall  be  the  time  on  Sunday  for  setting 
the  sponges  for  the  night's  work  following. 

"Section  2.  All  buildings  occupied  as  a  biscuit,  bread, 
pretzel,  pie  or  cake  bakery,  or  macaroni  establishment,  shall 
be  drained  and  plumbed  in  the  manner  directed  by  the  rules 
and  regulations  governing  the  house  drainage  and  plumbing, 
as  prescribed  by  law,  and  all  rooms  used  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid  shall  be  ventilated  by  means  of  air  shafts,  windows 
or  ventilating  pipes,  so  as  to  insure  a  free  circulation  of  air. 
No  cellar  or  basement,  not  now  used  for  a  bakery,  shall 
hereafter  be  occupied  and  used  as  a  bakery  unless  the  pro- 
prietor shall  have  previously  complied  with  the  sanitary 
provisions  of  this  act. 

"Section  3.  Every  room  used  for  the  manufacture  of 
flour  or  meal  food  products  shall  have  an  impervious  floor, 
constructed  of  cement,  or  of  tiles  laid  in  cement,  or  of  wood 
of  which  all  the  crevices  shall  be  filled  in  with  putty.  The 
inside  walls  and  ceiling  shall  be  plastered,  and  either  be 
painted  with  oil  paint,  three  (3)  coats,  or  be  lime-washed, 

*To  be  found  in  Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1901. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  (i8p^-ipoiJ.        yy 

or  the  side  walls  plastered  and  wainscoted  to  the  height  of 
six  (6)  feet  from  the  floor,  and  painted  or  oiled;  when 
painted,  shall  be  renewed  at  least  once  in  every  five  years, 
and  shall  be  washed  with  hot  water  and  soap  at  least  once 
in  every  three  (3)  months;  when  lime-washed,  the  lime- 
washing  shall  be  renewed  at  least  once  in  every  three  (3) 
months.  The  furniture  and  utensils  in  such  room  shall  be 
so  arranged  that  the  furniture  and  floor  may  at  all  times  be 
kept  in  a  thoroughly  sanitary  and  clean  condition.  No 
domestic  or  pet  animal  shall  be  allowed  in  a  room  used  as 
a  biscuit,  bread,  pie  or  cake  bakery,  or  in  any  room  in  such 
bakery  where  flour  or  meal  products  are  stored. 

"Section  4.  The  manufactured  flour  and  meal  food 
products  shall  be  kept  in  perfectly  dry  and  airy  rooms,  so 
arranged  that  the  floors,  shelves  and  all  other  places  for 
storing  the  same  can  be  easily  and  perfectly  cleaned." 

Sections  5  and  6  ordered  that  wash-rooms  and  water- 
closets  should  be  provided,  "apart  from  the  bakeroom  or 
rooms ;"  and  that  the  sleeping  rooms  of  the  employees 
should  be  kept  "separate  and  apart  from  the  room  or  rooms 
where  flour  or  meal  food  products  are  manufactured  or 
stored."  Following  sections  prohibited  the  employment  of 
persons  affected  with  consumption,  scrofula,  or  venereal 
diseases — it  being  made  the  duty  of  the  Board  of  Health  to 
enforce  this  provision — and  authorized  the  factory  inspector 
to  issue  a  "certificate  of  satisfactory  inspection"  to  all  per- 
sons conducting  a  bakery  in  compliance  with  the  act. 

Upon  the  owner,  agent  or  lessee  fell  the  duty  of  making 
all  needful  alterations.  Violation  of  any  of  the  provisions 
of  this  law  was  made  a  misdemeanor,  and  the  offender  was 
liable  to  a  fine  of  $20  to  $50  for  first  offense;  of  $50  to 
$100,  or  imprisonment  of  not  over  ten  days,  for  second 
offense ;  v/hile  for  a  third  offense  the  fine  should  be  "not 
less  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  ($250)  dollars  and  more 
than  thirty  (30)  days  imprisonment." 

This  statute  was  soon  found  to  have  two  weaknesses. 


y8  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

One  of  these,  an  important  detail,  was  the  alternative 
in  section  3  :  "or  the  side  walls  plastered  and  wainscoted  to 
the  height  of  six  (6)  feet  from  the  floor,  and  painted  or 
oiled."  In  his  report  for  1900  ]\Ir.  Campbell  called  such 
a  wainscoting  "a  harbor  for  roaches  and  vermin,"  and 
insisted  that  "a  plain,  plastered  wall  would  be  much  better." 
Accordingly,  in  the  bakeshop  act  of  1901  this  clause  was 
omitted. 

The  other  weakness — if  it  is  so  to  be  regarded — of  the 
act  of  1897  was  fundamental.  This  was  the  clause  that 
prohibited  Sunday  work  before  six  o'clock  p.  m.,  except  for 
the  setting  of  sponges.  The  enforcement  of  this  part  of  the 
act  was  bitterly  resisted,  Jules  Junker,  of  Philadelphia,  going 
so  far  as  to  violate  the  law  deliberately,  on  the  ground  that 
section  i  "permitted  him  to  work  his  men  after  six  o'clock 
p.  m.  on  Saturday,  providing  that  he  started  his  workmen  at 
a  corresponding  time  at  the  beginning  of  the  week."® 

On  application  of  Inspector  Campbell  for  an  official 
interpretation  of  section  i.  Attorney  General  McCormick 
rendered  a  decision  adverse  to  Mr.  Junker's  contention.  He 
says :  "This  language  is  not  ambiguous.  ...  It  seems 
clear  that  the  week  may  commence  at  any  time  on  Sunday 
after  six  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  will  terminate  at  the 
corresponding  hour  on  Saturday  evening  of  the  same 
week."i° 

The  case  came  to  trial  before  Judge  Wilson,  in  the 
Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  Philadelphia  County,"  in  Sep- 
tember of  the  same  year  (1897). 

It  was  argued  for  the  defense  that  the  act  was  uncon- 
stitutional :  first,  in  that  the  title  was  not  so  worded  as  to  be 
inclusive  of  all  the  distinct  subjects  contained  in  the  body  of 
the  act;  and,  second,  in  that  it  was  special  law  regulating 
labor  and   manufacturing.      Emphasis   was   placed   on   the 

'Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1897,  p.  12. 
"Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1897,  p.  13. 

^'^Commonzvealth  vs.  Junker,  Pennsylvania  County  Court  Reports, 
1898  (Vol.  20),  p.  503. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  ( i8p§-ipoi).        yg 

latter  point,  the  contention  being  that  the  act  was  limited 
not  only  to  a  particular  trade,  but  to  certain  members  of  that 
trade.  For  a  baker  who  was  able  and  willing  to  do  his  own 
work,  assisted  perhaps  by  his  immediate  family,  could  work 
during  the  proscribed  hours;  while  his  competitor  who 
needed  to  employ  outside  help  was  cut  off  from  the  possi- 
bility of  supplying  his  customers  with  fresh  bread  on  Sunday 
morning.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Junker,  and  of  many  others, 
this  would  be  a  great  hardship. 

As  a  sort  of  after-thought,  the  attorney  for  the  de- 
fense^ ^  advanced  the  technical  point  that  the  first  section  of 
the  act  prohibited  that  which  could  not  possibly  occur,  as 
there  could  not  be  "more  than  six  days  in  any  one  week, 
said  week  to  commence  on  Sunday  not  before  six  o'clock 
post  meridian,  and  to  terminate  at  a  corresponding  time  on 
Saturday  of  the  same  week,"  unless  the  length  of  a  day 
were  to  be  reckoned  at  less  than  twenty-four  hours.  And 
that  the  indictment  was  senseless  because  it  charged  that  the 
unlawful  labor  occurred  on  a  Sunday  (August  8),  which 
was  alleged  to  be  a  part  of  a  week  ending  on  the  previous 
day  (August  7). 

To  the  surprise  of  the  attorney,  but  in  accordance  with 
what  seems  to  be  frequent  preference  on  the  part  of  our 
judges,  the  constitutional  arguments  were  passed  by,  and 
the  indictment  was  quashed  on  the  ground  that  (as  just 
pointed  out)  the  language  used  in  section  i  of  the  act  was 
"meaningless  and  absurd." 

The  judge  assumed  that  the  purpose  of  the  Legislature 
was  to  enact  that  an  employer  "should  not  require  more  than 
six  days  in  an  entire  week,  beginning  at  six  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  of  Sunday,  the  effect  of  which  would  be  to  prevent 
the  requirement  of  work  between  six  o'clock  on  Saturday 
afternoon  and  the  same  hour  on  Sunday  afternoon."  But 
as  the  statute  was  a  penal  one,  its  terms  must  be  so  clear  as 

"James   L.   Stanton,   Esq.,   Philadelphia,   who  has  kindly  furnished 
the  information  on  this  subject. 


8o  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

not  to  "require  a  court  to  add  a  substantial  part  of  the  pro- 
visions which  would  justify  or  require  imposition  of  punish- 
ment." 

It  is  unfortunate  that  a  little  too  much  sentiment  got 
mixed  up  with  this  bakeshop  act  of  1897,  so  far  as  adults 
were  concerned.  There  seems  to  have  been  little  occasion 
for  this  interference  with  their  work  on  Saturday  nights. 
When  carried  to  an  extreme,  factory  legislation  is  bound  to 
provoke  a  reaction,  as  in  tliis  case.  For  in  the  new  bakeshop 
law  of  1 90 1  not  only  was  this  unwarrantable  provision 
stricken  out,  but  along  with  it  went  the  admirable  clause 
prohibiting  the  employment  of  persons  under  eighteen  years 
of  age  between  the  hours  of  nine  p.  m.  and  five  a.  m.,  section 
I  of  the  bakeshop  act  of  1901  being  made  to  conform  with 
section  i  of  the  factory  act  of  the  same  year. 

Thus  perished  the  first  attempt  by  the  Commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania  to  protect  children  from  the  evils  of  night 
work,  an  attempt  not  renewed  till  four  years  later. 

Factory  Acts  of  iSgy,  ipoi. 

Having  traced  the  progress  of  factory  legislation 
through  its  various  amplifications — fire-escape,  payment  of 
wages,  workshop,  bakeshop,  etc. — we  come  back  to  our 
starting  point,  namely,  the  so-called  factory  acts.  These 
were  radically  amended  in  1897,  and  again  in  1901. 

The  changes  in  1897  were,  briefly,  as  follows: 

First — Adult  women  were  added  to  the  list  of  persons 
whose  hours  of  labor  were  restricted. 

Second — The  act  was  extended  over  printing  offices 
and  workshops. 

Third  (doubtful) — Mercantile  industries  seem  to  have 
been  included  in  the  fire-escape  provision  of  this  statute ;  but, 
as  they  were  omitted  from  the  fire-escape  act  of  1897,  with 
which  this  act  must  be  construed,  there  was  an  apparent  dis- 
crepancy between  the  two  laws. 

Fourth — Minors  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  not  able 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  (iSpyipoi).        8i 

to  read  and  write  the  English  language,  must  present  a 
certificate  of  having  attended  during  the  preceding  year  an 
evening  or  day  school  for  sixteen  weeks,  this  certificate  to 
be  signed  by  the  teacher  or  teachers. 

Fifth — Seats  were  to  be  provided,  and  their  use  per- 
mitted, wherever  women  or  girls  were  employed.  Thus 
there  was  made  effective,  by  placing  under  the  authority  of 
the  factory  inspectors,  a  regulation  which  had  been  on  the 
statute  books  since  1887. 

Sixth — Boiler  inspection  was  placed  with  the  depart- 
ment, with  power  to  prohibit  the  use  of  dangerous  boilers. 
This  had  been  recommended  by  Mr.  Campbell  in  his  report 
for  1896. 

Seventh — All  reservation  was  dropped  as  to  minimum 
number  of  women  and  children  employed  which  should 
bring  the  establishment  under  the  law.  As  already  noted, 
this  number  was  placed  at  ten  by  the  act  of  1889  and  reduced 
to  five  by  the  act  of  1893. 

The  factory  act  of  1901  was  an  inconsistent  and  un- 
satisfactory piece  of  legislation.  To  begin  with,  the  plain 
educational  provision  of  the  act  of  1897  was  stricken  out, 
and  its  place  was  taken  by  the  requirement  that  "after  a 
careful  examination  by  persons  authorized  to  administer 
oaths,  if  a  child  is  found  unable  to  read  and  write  the  Eng- 
lish language,  or  has  not  attended  school  as  required  by 
law,  or  is  under  thirteen  years  of  age,  it  will  be  unlawful  to 
issue  a  certificate."  In  interpreting  this  section  the  question 
arose:  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  clause,  "or  has  not 
attended  school  as  required  by  law?"  Is  the  notary  supposed 
to  examine  into  the  school  attendance  of  the  child  since  he 
came  under  the  compulsory  school  law  ?  The  factory  inspec- 
tors found  it  expedient  to  place  the  emphasis  on  the  ability 
to  read  and  write  the  English  language. 

The  section  giving  inspectors,  in  case  of  accidents  in 
factories,  the  right  to  subpoena  witnesses  and  administer 
oaths,  was  a  commendable  one ;   and  so  was  that  part  of  the 


82  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania-, 

act  which  assigned  to  the  inspectors  the  duty  of  enforcing' 
the  prohibition  against  minors  under  fourteen  years  of  age 
operating  or  otherwise  having  the  care  or  custody  of  ele- 
vators. This  prohibition  dated  from  1893,  but  was  now  for 
the  first  time  rendered  certain  of  enforcement. 

Sections  7  and  13  were  partly  neutralized  by  section 
14.  Section  7  added  school  buildings  and  hospitals  to  ele- 
vator inspection;  while  section  13  added  hotels,  school  build- 
ings, seminaries,  colleges,  academies,  hospitals,  storehouses, 
public  halls  and  places  of  amusement  to  the  fire-escape  juris- 
diction of  the  inspectors.  But  now  came  section  14,  with 
its  unfortunate  proviso  that  the  portions  of  the  act  providing 
for  elevator,  fire-escape  and  boiler  inspection  by  the  factory 
inspectors  "shall  not  apply  to  municipalities, 
where,  under  the  existing  law,  the  boiler  inspectors,  the 
building  or  elevator  inspectors,  the  fire  marshal,  or  other 
officers  are  vested  with  like  authority.  This  was  a  distinctly 
retrograde  step,  as  thereby  cities  of  the  first  and  second  class 
were  exempted  from  commonwealth  oversight  and  control. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  factory  law  of  1901  was  decid- 
edly weaker  than  the  preceding  act  of  1897.  It  was  hoped, 
how'ever,  that  this  set-back  was  only  temporary,  and  that 
the  "game  of  politics"  was  not  going  to  be  played  with 
interests  so  vital  as  those  comprehended  in  factory  legisla- 
tion. 

Decision  as  to  Adult  Women  (iSQp). 

Before  leaving  the  factory  acts  of  1897  '^"d  1901  we 
must  stop  to  rejoice  at  a  signal  victory  won  in  a  Philadel- 
phia court  in  1899,  ^"d  confirmed  by  the  Superior  Court 
soon  after,  on  the  issue  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  those 
sections  of  the  act  of  1897  which  limited  the  working  day 
for  adult  women. 

In  1895,  Miss  O'Reilly  (in  her  report  to  Chief  Camp- 
bell) ^^  had  deplored  the  apparent  inability  of  our  legisla- 

"Factory  Inspector's  Report  for  1895,  p.  17. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  ( iSpyipoi).        83 

tors  to  **learn  for  themselves  the  great  need  there  is  for  the 
hmiting  of  the  hours  of  labor  for  women  as  well  as  minors. 
Could  they  know,  as  we  do,  how  these  creatures  crave  for 
this  boon,  they  would  certainly  concede  it."  This  "boon," 
as  we  have  seen,  was  granted  in  1897;  ^^^  within  two 
years  thereafter  its  constitutionality  was  tested  in  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas  No.  i  of  Philadelphia.^*  To  Judge  Biddle 
is  to  be  ascribed  the  honor  of  rendering  a  decision  in  accord 
alike  with  English  and  American  precedent^^  and  with  the 
spirit  of  the  age. 

The  defendants  contended  that  "the  act,  in  so  far  as  it 
applies  to  adult  women,  is  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  because  it  is  an  unjust  interfer- 
ence with  her  right  to  acquiring  and  possessing  property  and 
pursuing  her  own  happiness ;  that  it  is  also  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  because  it  is  an  attempt 
to  deprive  her  of  liberty  and  property  without  due  process 
of  law." 

In  negativing  this  contention,  Judge  Biddle  pointed  out 
that  by  its  very  title  the  object  of  the  enactment  was  to 
provide  for  "the  health  and  safety  of  men,  women  and 
children"  in  certain  fields  of  labor;  and  that  this  was,  ac- 
cordingly, an  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  state. 
Hence,  the  case  resolved  itself  into  the  query  as  to  whether 
that  power  had  been  properly  exercised  in  this  instance. 

After  citing  precedents  drawn  from  Massachusetts,  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court/^   and  finally  Pennsylvania 

^^Cominonzi'ealth  vs.  Bcafty.  County  Court  Reports,  Vol.  XXIII, 
p.  300. 

"The  Massachusetts  Supreme  Court,  e.  g.,  had  decided  that  women 
were  wards  of  the  state,  and  that  a  law  Hmiting  their  hours  of  labor 
was  constitutional. 

"The  reference  here  was  to  a  decision  upholding  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  Utah  eight-hour  law  for  workers  in  underground 
mines,  smelters,  etc. :  Holdcn  vs.  Hardy,  Sheriff,  Supreme  Court  Re- 
porter, p.  383. 

In  this  opinion,  Mr.  Justice  Brown  notes  that  the  police  power  of 
the  state  is  expanding  rapidly,  "owing  to  an  enormous  increase  in  the 


84  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

itself,  the  judge  turned  to  the  state  constitution,  one  sec- 
tion ^"^  of  which  provides  that  the  exercise  of  the  poHce 
power  of  the  state  shall  "never  be  abridged  or  so  construed 
as  to  permit  corporations  to  conduct  their  business  in  such 
manner  as  to  infringe  the  equal  rights  of  individuals  or  the 
general  well-being  of  the  state."  And  then  Judge  Biddle 
adds :  "Surely  an  act  which  prevents  the  mothers  of  our 
race  from  being  tempted  to  endanger  their  lives  and  health 
by  exhaustive  employment,  can  be  condemned  by  none  save 
those  who  expect  to  profit  by  it.  The  complaint  of  violated 
constitutional  rights,  it  will  be  observed,  does  not  come  from 
those  who  are  employed,  but  from  those  who  employ  them. 
.  .  .  We  think  that  this  act  is  clearly  within  the  police 
power  of  the  state,  and  the  exercise  of  it  in  this  case  justified 
by  the  interests  of  the  individual  and  the  community." 

This  eminently  just  and  well-grounded  decision  was 
confirmed,  a  little  later,  by  the  Superior  Court.^^  In  this 
opinion  high  ground  is  taken  on  the  subject  of  the  protection 
that  the  state  may  afford  to  labor,  through  the  exercise  of 
its  police  power.  "It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Legislature 
to  prescribe  regulations  founded  on  nature,  reason  and  ex- 
perience in  determining  the  kind  of  labor  and  the  length  of 
time  it  shall  be  permitted  by  either  men,  women  or  minors. 

number  of  occupations  which  are  dangerous  or  so  far  detrimental  to 
the  health  of  employees  as  to  demand  special  precautions  for  their  well 
being.  ..."  Toward  the  close  Justice  Brown  lays  down  this 
sweeping  dictum,  which  is  bound  to  give  the  state  large  powers  of 
interference  between  employer  and  employee:  that  "the  fact  that  both 
parties  are  of  full  age,  and  competent  to  contract,  does  not  necessarily 
deprive  the  state  of  the  power  to  interfere,  where  the  parties  do  not 
stand  upon  an  equality,  or  where  the  public  health  demands  that  one 
party  to  the  contract  shall  be  protected  against  himself.  .  .  .  The 
whole  is  no  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts,  and  when  the  individual 
health,  safety  and  welfare  are  sacrificed  or  neglected,  the  state  must 
suffer." 

"Art.  XVI,  sec.  3. 

"Superior  Court  Reports,  Vol.  XV,  p.  6. 


Expansion  of  Factory  Legislation  (i8p^-ipoi).        85 

Sex  imposes  limitations  to  excessive  or  long-continued 
physical  labor,  as  certainly  as  does  minority,  and  the  arrested 
development  of  children  is  no  more  dangerous  to  the  state 
than  debilitating  so  large  a  class  of  our  citizens  as  adult 
females  by  undue  and  unreasonable  physical  labor."  And 
again :  "In  view  of  our  many  mining  and  manufacturing 
industries,  the  solicitous  care  of  government  over  the  health 
and  safety  of  the  laborers  is  an  important  branch  of  legisla- 
tive duties.     It  is  not  a  denial  of  the  right  to  contract." 


CHAPTER  VII. 
Child  Labor  Campaign   (1903- 1905). 

Legislation  of  ipo^. 

The  legislative  session  of  1903  saw  three  distinct 
attempts  in  the  field  of  factory  legislation.  The  first  bill^ — 
and  the  only  one  to  pass — increased  the  number  of  deputy 
inspectors  from  twenty-five  to  thirty-seven.  As  introduced 
in  the  Senate,  the  more  modest  number  of  five  additional 
deputies  was  asked  for,  but  the  House  saw  fit  to  increase  the 
number  to  twelve.  The  increase  was  vigorously  attacked 
from  both  sides  of  the  house,  as  a  piece  of  spoils  legislation,^ 
but  whatever  the  motive,  the  additional  force  was  certainly 
needed  by  the  department. 

The  second  effort  at  factory  legislation  was  made  by 
the  State  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  and  took  the  form 
of  a  child  labor  bill.  Its  history  is  as  follows :  While  the 
Legislature  was  in  session  a  conference  was  called  by  the 
State  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  at  Philadelphia,  Feb- 
ruary 2,  looking  to  the  improvement  of  the  conditions  of 
child  labor  in  the  state.  At  this  conference  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  frame  a  law  which  would  raise  the  minimum 
age  from  thirteen  to  fifteen  years,  supplement  effectively  the 
compulsory  education  law — which  would  itself,  in  turn,  need 
revision — and  secure  the  abolition  of  night  work  for  young 
people.  Or,  if  the  drafting  of  a  new  bill  should  be  consid- 
ered inadvisable  by  the  committee,  it  was  to  suggest  means 
for  securing  the  enforcement  of  existing  legislation.  This 
committee  was  composed  of  the  following :  Mrs.  Ellis 
Lewis  Campbell,  chairman ;  Mrs.  Howard  Lippincott,  Mrs. 

'Senate  bill  140;  House  bill  258. 
•Legislative  Record,  pp.  1687-8. 

(86) 


Child  Labor  Canipaign  ( ipo^-igoj).  87 

Frederick  Schofif,  Mrs.  Joseph  P.  Mumford,  Miss  Mary  E. 
Garrett,  Mrs.  Florence  Kelley.  The  committee  soon 
reached  the  conckision  that  the  only  way  to  draw  attention 
to  the  sad  plight  of  the  child  workers,  and  to  set  people 
thinking,  was  to  introduce  a  bill  of  its  own.  Accordingly, 
the  services  of  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  Esq.,  were  secured, 
a  child  labor  bill  was  drafted,  and  through  the  kind  offices  of 
Senator  Sproul  of  Delaware  County  the  measure  came 
before  the  Senate,^  where  it  died  in  committee. 

Since  this  child  labor  bill  served  as  a  pattern  for  the  one 
incorporated  in  the  act  of  1905,  it  must  receive  our  careful 
consideration.  As  originally  drawn  up,  the  bill  forbade  the 
employment  of  any  child  under  fourteen  during  the  hours  the 
public  schools  were  in  session,  or  of  any  minor  for  more  than 
ten  hours  a  day  or  fifty-five  hours  a  week,  or  of  any  male 
child  under  sixteen  or  female  child  under  eighteen  between 
nine  p.  m.  and  six  a.  m.,  or  of  any  child  between  fourteen  and 
sixteen  who  c.ould  not  read  and  write  simple  sentences  in 
the  English  language  and  who  had  not  complied  with  the 
education  laws  of  the  commonwealth,  or  of  any  minor  under 
eighteen  who  had  not  filed  with  the  employer  certificates  and 
affidavits  of  age  as  outlined  in  the  bill."* 

As  finally  presented  to  the  Senate,  the  bill  was  wisely 
shorn  of  its  confusing  distinctions  between  male  children 
and  female  children  and  between  sixteen  and  eighteen  years 
of  age,  the  age  of  sixteen  years  being  accepted  as  the  indus- 
trial dividing  line  between  the  protected  and  the  unprotected 
workers.  Thus  amended,  the  bill  forbade  the  employment, 
"at  any  labor  or  service  whatever,"  ( i )  of  any  child  under 
fourteen,  or  (2)  of  any  child  under  sixteen  more  than  ten 
hours  a  day  or  fifty-five  hours  a  week,  or  (3)  of  any 
child  under  sixteen  between  nine  p.  m.  and  six  a.  m.,  or 
(4)  of  any  child  between  fourteen  and  sixteen  who  could 

•Senate  bill  255. 

*From  an  original  copy,  furnished  by  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor 
Committee. 


88  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsyhania. 

not  read  and  write  simple  sentences  in  the  English  language 
or  who  had  not  complied  with  the  education  laws  of  the 
commonwealth,  or  (5)  of  any  child  between  fourteen  and 
sixteen  who  had  not  filed  with  the  employer  certificates  and 
affidavits  of  age  as  outlined  in  the  bill  itself.  The  affidavit 
was  to  be  ^made  by  parent,  guardian  or  custodian  of  the 
child  seeking  employment,  and  must  set  forth  date  and 
place  of  birth,  and  of  baptism  if  any.  The  certificate  of 
birth  must  be  taken  from  the  records  kept  by  a  religious 
association  or  public  authority,  or  of  baptism  as  kept  by  the 
former;  or,  with  a  foreign-born  child,  from  the  passenger 
manifest,  passport  or  other  official  record  filed  at  the  office 
of  the  commissioner  of  immigration.  Both  affidavit  and 
certificate  "must  be  approved  by  an  attendance  officer  resid- 
ing in  the  same  school  district  as  the  child,  or,  if  no  attend- 
ance officer  exist  in  that  district,  by  the  secretary  of  the 
district  school  board,  which  approval  shall  only  be  given 
after  careful  inquiry  and  consideration,  aided,  if  deemed 
necessary,  by  a  medical  examination  of  the  child,  without 
charge  therefor."  Such  affidavits  and  certificates  were  sub- 
ject to  the  inspection  of  attendance  officer  or  secretary  of 
school  board,  or  of  any  factory  inspector,  at  all  times  during 
employment  of  child.  "Wilful  false  swearing"  as  to  an 
affidavit  was  to  constitute  perjury.  A  violation  of  this  act 
constituted  a  misdemeanor,  punishable,  on  second  offense, 
by  both  fine  and  imprisonment,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
court.*^ 

Here  we  have  the  first  open  recognition  in  Pennsylvania 
of  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  mere  affidavit  of  age,  which  had 
come  to  be  more  a  temptation  to  easy  and  safe  perjury  than 
a  protection  to  the  child  under  the  legal  age.  And  here,  for 
the  first  time,  we  have  also  an  enlisting  of  the  school  authori- 
ties on  the  side  of  factory  legislation :  a  movement  which 
can  end  only  by  a  frank  acknowledgment  that  a  child  labor 
law  and  a  compulsory  education  law  are  but  complements 

'From  an  original  copy,  furnished  by  Mrs.  Ellis  Lewis  Campbell. 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipoj-ipo§).  89 

of  each  other — co-ordinate  steps  in  the  great  movement 
making  for  the  emancipation  of  childhood. 

The  third  measure  presented  at  this  session  is  sui 
generis.  It  was  an  attempt  to  provide  for  volunteer  in- 
spectors, and  ran  as  follows  :^ 

"Section  i.  Be  it  enacted,  etc..  That  on  and  after  the 
first  day  of  July,  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  three,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Governor,  upon  application  of  the 
Pennsylvania  State  Federation  of  Labor,  to  issue  to  such 
persons  as  are  recommended  by  the  latter  commissions  as 
factory  inspectors  to  serve  without  pay  from  the  state. 

"Section  2.  This  class  of  inspectors  shall  be  known  as 
voluntary  inspectors,  and  shall  be  possessed  of  the  same 
powers  and  authority  at  law^  and  otherwise  as  are  now  given 
to  the  deputy  factory  inspectors  at  present  in  commission 
of  the  state. 

"Section  3.  That  these  volunteer  factory  inspectors 
shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  chief  factory  inspec- 
tor in  the  same  way  as  the  deputy  factory  inspectors  now 
are,  with  the  exception  that  a  voluntary  inspector  shall  not 
be  subject  to  removal  unless  upon  application  therefor  from 
the  Pennsylvania  Federation  of  Labor  or  the  Central  Labor 
Union  of  the  districts  for  which  he  has  been  commissioned. 

"Section  4.  That  the  number  of  commissions  to  be 
issued  to  volunteer  inspectors  shall  be  regulated  as  follows : 
In  cities  of  the  first  class  the  maximum  number  of  voluntary 
inspectors  to  be  in  commission  at  the  same  time  shall  be 
twenty ;  in  cities  of  the  second  class  .  .  .  ten ;  in  cities 
of  the  third  class  .  .  .  six ;  in  boroughs  and  town- 
ships    .     .     .     two. 

"Section  5.  That  these  voluntary  factory  inspectors 
shall  be  supplied  with  such  stationery,  report  forms  and 
other  paraphernalia  of  office  as  are  now  supplied  to  deputy 
factory  inspectors,  but  it  shall  only  be  obligatory  upon  a 

•House  bill  No.  807. 


90  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

voluntary  inspector  to  make  report  to  the  chief  factory- 
inspector  at  such  times  as  he  may  deem  necessary  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  factory  laws."^ 

This  attempt  to  provide  by  law  for  an  unofficial,  par- 
tisan spy  system  on  the  Factory  Inspction  Department  was 
not  allowed  to  come  to  a  final  vote,  but  was  cautiously  "post- 
poned for  the  present." 

Pennsyk^ania  Child  Labor  Committee  Organised  (1^04). 

The  child  labor  bill,  which  received  such  scant  courtesy 
at  the  hands  of  the  1903  legislators,  had  served  a  twofold 
purpose,  in  drawing-  some  attention  to  the  problem  and  in 
clarifying  and  unifying  the  views  of  those  organizations 
which  were  to  line  up  in  defense  of  the  movement  at  the 
next  legislative  session  (1905). 

And  now^  there  occurred  an  event  that  was  to  have  an 
important  bearing  upon  the  fortunes  of  the  child  labor  move- 
ment in  Pennsylvania.  This  event  was  the  investigation 
conducted  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  whose 
sessions  were  held  at  Scranton,  Pa.,  in  December  of  1903. 

But  few  people,  comparatively,  would  have  read  the 
carefully  collected  data  of  a  special  investigation  on  the  evils 
of  child  labor ;  but  everybody  was  interested  in  this  coal 
strike  investigation,  and  everybody  read  the  newspapers. 
And  when  ample  testimony  was  elicited  to  the  effect  that 
children  of  eleven  and  even  ten  years  of  age,  the  sons  and 
daughters  often  of  well-to-do  miners,  were  slaving  in  the 
silk  mills  of  the  neighborhood,  taking  their  turn  on  night 
shifts  and  for  twelve  hours  a  day;  and  when  the  honored 
chairman,  Judge  Gray,  was  constrained  to  characterize  such 
action  on  the  part  of  parents  as  a  giving  of  their  consent  "to 
(?bin  the  flesh  and  blood  of  their  children  into  money  to 
help  their  income  when  there  is  no  absolute  necessity  for  it," 
then  the  public  conscience  was  stirred,  the  enormity  of  the 
system  was  perceived  in  its  true  light,  and  the  advocates  of 

^Legislative  Record,  p.  3606. 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (190^-190^).  91 

the  right  to  childhood  could  feel  that  the  way  was  paved  for 
a  child  labor  campaign  in  1904  which  should  end  in  a  legis- 
lative victory  the  following  year. 

In  the  spring  of  1904  Mrs.  Campbell  was  approached 
by  certain  Philadelphia  people  outside  her  committee — the 
Child  Labor  Committee  of  the  State  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs,  already  described,  which  had  secured  the  drafting  and 
introduction  of  the  child  labor  bill  of  1903 — and  requested 
to  take  the  initiative  in  an  investigation  of  child  labor  condi- 
tions, which  should  precede  the  proposed  legislation  of 
1905.  Though  at  first  disposed  to  place  all  responsibility  for 
needed  legislation  on  the  new  chief  factory  inspector,  Cap- 
tain J.  C.  Delaney,  Mrs.  Campbell  promptly  called  her  com- 
mittee together  for  a  conference  with  the  representatives  of 
several  outside  organizations.^  Two  such  conferences  were 
held,  April  14  and  May  5,  Inspector  Delaney  participating 
in  the  latter.  This  large  body,  known  as  the  Pennsylvania 
Child  Labor  Committee,  soon  found  it  advisable  to  appoint 
a  sub-committee  from  its  own  membership,  called  the  ex- 
ecutive committee. 

In  December  of  the  same  year  ( 1904)  the  general  com- 
mittee, acting  on  the  advice  of  its  executive  committee, 
merged  all  its  authority  in  the  latter,  which  was  empowered 
hereafter  to  use  the  title  "Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee," and  to  add  to  its  number  such  "representative  citi- 
zens" as  would  insure  it  influential  support  in  the  campaign 
already  begun.  The  authorized  increase  in  membership 
took  place  soon  after. 

Meanwhile,  on  April  15,  1904,  there  had  been  formally 
organized  in  the  City  of  New  York  a  National  Child  Labor 
Committee,  with  Dr.  Felix  Adler  as  chairman.    Its  member- 

*These  included  the  following:  Consumers'  League,  Mothers'  Con- 
gress, Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  Public  Education  Asso- 
ciation, Children's  Aid  Society,  Pennsylvania  Society  to  Protect  Chil- 
dren from  Cruelty,  Society  for  Organizing  Charity,  Pennsylvania 
Association  of  Women  Workers,  Civic  Club,  New  Century  Club, 
College  Settlement. 


92  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

ship,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pennsylvania  committee,  was 
fairly  representative — except  of  labor  itself,  in  whose  imme- 
diate interest  this  whole  movement  is  so  largely  conducted! 
Pennsylvania  was  represented  by  Dr.  Talcott  Williams.  At 
this  time  fifteen  states  had  made  recent  gains  in  child  labor 
legislation,  and  only  one  of  the  southern  industrial  states 
(Georgia)  had  failed  to  make  a  start  in  this  direction.  A 
number  of  states  had  child  labor  committees;  and  the  na- 
tional committee  was  not  *'to  act  as  substitute  for  local  com- 
mittees, nor  undermine  local  initiative,"  but  to  co-ordinate 
and  strengthen  their  work  and  to  call  state  committees  into 
existence  where  they  were  wanting.^  The  consent  of  the 
Hon  Samuel  McCune  Lindsay  to  act  as  secretary  was  finally 
secured.  And  this  was  fortunate,  not  only  for  the  national 
committee,  but  also,  as  will  appear  later,  for  the  Pennsyl- 
vania child  labor  movement. 

Child  Labor  Committee  Investigation  of  IQ04. 

An  investigation  into  the  condition  of  child  labor  was 
undertaken  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1904,  conducted 
by  the  secretary.  Miss  Helen  Marot,  who  had  gained  in- 
valuable experience  in  a  similar  movement  in  New  York 
State  the  year  before,  and  with  the  active  co-operation  of 
Miss  Richmond,  the  resourceful  general  secretary  of  the 
Philadelphia  Society  for  Organizing  Charity. 

How  elaborate  and  complete  was  the  preparation  is 
well  summarized  in  the  first  annual  report  (1904-5)  of  the 
committee  -.^^  "In  Philadelphia,  Miss  Edith  Jones,  with  the 
experience  of  a  probation  officer,  gave  three  months  to  the 
investigation.  She  interviewed  the  children  personally,  as 
well  as  others  who  knew  them  as  school  children,  club  chil- 
dren, employees ;  who  knew  them  at  home  and  as  friends. 
The  Rev.  Peter  Roberts,  a  resident  of  the  east-central  part 
of  the  state,  a  well-known  student  and  writer  of  labor  condi- 

•See  "Charities,"  Vol.  XII. 
"Pp.  5  and  6. 


Child  Labor  Campaign  ( ipoj-ipo^).  93 

tions  in  his  own  locality,  spent  six  months  on  a  special  inves- 
tigation for  the  committee.  A  teacher  of  South  Pittsburg, 
well  acquainted  with  the  children  who  worked  in  glass 
houses,  gave  a  month  to  the  investigation  in  that  locality. 
Mr.  Owen  R.  Lovejoy,  assistant  secretary  of  the  National 
Child  Labor  Committee,  also  investigated  and  reported  on 
the  condition  of  children  in  glass  houses  in  the  western  part 
of  the  state,  in  connection  with  the  cross-state  investigation 
of  the  glass  industry.  Mr,  Lovejoy's  valuable  report  was 
placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  committee.  A  special  investi- 
gation, undertaken  for  the  committee,  was  made  by  the 
Public  Education  Association  [of  Philadelphia].  .  .  . 
A  dozen  or  more  superintendents  of  schools,  as  well  as  super- 
intendents of  parochial  schools ;  the  officers  of  school  boards, 
teachers  of  both  parochial  and  public  schools ;  Sunday-school 
teachers;  .  .  .  teachers  of  working  boys'  and  working 
girls'  clubs ;  the  residents  of  settlements  in  both  the  eastern 
and  western  part  of  the  state;  superintendents  and  visitors 
of  charitable  societies;  eminent  physicians,^^  as  well  as 
physicians  acquainted  with  the  working  people;  manufac- 
turers ;  managers  of  telegraph  and  district  messenger  offices, 
and  trade  unionists,  were  all  consulted,  and  all  furnished  the 
committee  with  data  which  threw  light  on  the  various  phases 
of  child  labor.  Aside  from  the  expert  testimony  which  the 
individual  investigations  brought  together,  the  records  oi 
the  Boys'  House  of  Refuge  were  carefully  examined,  as  well 
as  the  records  of  the  court  officers  in  the  eastern  and  western 
parts  of  the  state.  .  .  ,  The  Philadelphia  Bureau  of 
Compulsory  Education,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  committee, 
noted  in  its  school  census  the  kinds  of  labor  performed  by 
children  between  thirteen  and  sixteen  years  old." 

This  material  reached  the  secretary,  she  tells  us  in  the 
report,  "in  the  form  of  notes  and  schedules ;"  and  from  these 
she  was  able  to  compile  reports  which  were  given  wnde  cir- 
culation by  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee,  in  the  form 

*V.  g.,  Drs.  J.  H.  Musser  and  W.  W.  Keen,  of  Philadelphia. 


94  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

of  pamphlets  whose  titles  are  indicative  of  their  contents : 
"Children  Who  Work  at  Night,"  "Illiteracy  Promoted  by 
Perjury,''  "The  Cost  of  Child  Labor,"  "Dependent  Parents," 
"The  Unprotected  Children."  The  first  three  of  these  were 
chiefly  devoted  to  picturing  the  evils  of  child  labor  and  its 
enormous  social  cost;  the  fourth  attacked  one  of  the  stock 
arguments  of  the  advocates  of  child  labor,  while  the  last- 
named  pamphlet  pointed  out  the  line  of  advance  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  Legislature  in  order  that  all  children  still  the 
victims  of  a  greed  that  is  without  pity  should  be  reached 
and  protected.  And,  finally,  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor 
Committee  itself  more  completely  popularized  the  whole 
subject  in  an  illustrated  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Working 
Children  of  Pennsylvania."  What  the  committee  discovered 
by  all  this  painstaking  research  is  well  brought  out  in  these 
publications. 

Mr.  Roberts  investigated  the  records  of  school  attend- 
ance in  a  large  number  of  industrial  towns,  and  found  a 
great  falling  off  between  the  sixth  and  eighth  years  of 
school  life.  This  falling  off  reached  fifty  per  cent  in  several 
of  the  towns  investigated  and  as  high  as  eighty-five  per  cent 
in  West  Easton.  Not  twenty  per  cent  of  children  in  the 
factory  towns  of  less  than  6,000  population  finished  their 
education  in  the  common  English  branches. 

The  lack  of  education  on  the  part  of  the  children  was 
even  greater  than  would  be  indicated  by  the  age  at  which 
they  went  to  work.  An  investigation  of  the  school  records 
of  Philadelphia  showed  that  the  average  age  of  the  children 
who  left  to  begin  work  was  eleven  years,  and  that  the  aver- 
age grade  was  the  third,  while  the  average  age  of  the 
public  school  children  in  that  grade  was  nine  years. 

The  question  naturally  suggests  itself :  Why  are  these 
working  children  two  years  slower  than  the  average  school 
boys  and  girls?  Lack  of  proficiency  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, lack  of  home  care,  both  physical  and  mental,  and  an 
interrupted    school    attendance — all    present    themselves    as 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipoj-i^o^).  95 

causes  of  this  unfortunate  discrepancy  noted  by  the  investi- 
gators. And  it  is  not  strange  that  children  leaving  school 
with  the  intellectual  equipment  of  an  ordinary  child  of  nine 
should  have  been  found  to  have  forgotten  what  little  they 
had  learned  and  to  have  become  almost  illiterate. 

Children  thirteen  years  of  age  might  legally  work 
twelve  hours  in  any  one  day  or  sixty  hours  a  week,  even 
in  the  occupations  covered  by  the  factory  acts;  while  mes- 
senger boys,  newspaper  boys  and  girls,  bootblacks,  bowling 
alley  tenders,  errand  boys  and  girls,  and  all  other  non-pro- 
tected children  might  work  as  long  as  tired  nature  permitted, 
since  there  was  no  prohibition  (before  1905)  of  night  work 
in  Pennsylvania.  The  early  breakfast  and  late  supper  were 
often  insufficient  and  hurriedly  eaten,  while  the  noonday 
meal  was  cold  except  in  those  few  places  where  provision 
was  made  for  a  hot  luncheon.  Some  employments  were 
found  to  be  particularly  dangerous  to  the  health  of  the 
young  workers,  especially  those  in  which  the  employees  must 
breathe  a  lint-  or  dust-laden  atmosphere.  The  handling  of 
hot  metals  by  the  children  was  as  difficult  and  dangerous 
as  might  be  expected  from  the  weakness  and  heedlessness  of 
youth. 

To  illustrate  how  rapidly  the  factory  used  up  what  the 
school  had  been  saving  and  developing,  the  following  inter- 
view may  be  quoted  at  length  from  an  unpublished  report 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee.  The  super- 
intendent of  the  Lehigh  Manufacturing  Company  "very 
kindly  discussed  their  attitude  toward  the  question  of  child 
labor.  Lie  said  they  were  in  favor  of  raising  the  age  limit 
to  fourteen  years,  and  that  now  they  permitted  no  night 
work  in  their  mills.  He  contended,  however,  that  there  was 
something  to  be  said  in  favor  of  child  labor.  The  draw- 
back to  raising  the  age  limit,  he  said,  was  that  between 
thirteen  and  fourteen  years  children  learn  more  quickly  than 
at  any  subsequent  period.  .  .  .  He  also  said  that  they 
found  difficulty  in  using  children  from  other  mills.     They 


96  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

wanted  them  fresh  from  school.  One  of  his  forewomen 
said  the  girls  were  difficult  to  manage  after  they  were  six- 
teen, and  that  thev  lost  ambition." 

Mr.  Nibecker,  superintendent  of  the  House  of  Refuge 
located  near  Philadelphia,  stated  that  a  school  boy  was  a 
rare  exception  in  his  institution,  and  that  "the  lines  of  com- 
mitment and  lack  of  schooling  run  parallel."  A  large  num- 
ber of  the  boys  were  illiterate.  Larceny  was  the  most 
common  crime,  and  a  desire  to  do  something  exciting  after 
a  day  of  drudgery  was  often  the  motive. 

Other  evil  moral  results  of  early  working  were  discov- 
ered. Mr.  Roberts  found  that  the  physicians  of  factory 
towns  concurred  in  testifying  to  the  prevalence  of  social 
evils  among  the  young  operatives.  Dr.  Gerhardt,  of  Allen- 
town,  said :  "There  are  more  unhappy  homes,  ruined  lives, 
blasted  hopes  and  diseased  bodies  in  Allentown  than  in  any 
city  of  its  size,  because  of  the  factories  here." 

What  do  the  parents  of  the  working  children  receive  for 
this  labor,  performed  at  so  terrible  a  cost  to  the  laborers  in 
intellect,  health  and  morals  ?  An  investigation  of  the  wages 
paid  to  a  large  number  of  children  between  eleven  and  six- 
teen years  of  age  gave  an  average  of  $3.70  per  week,  and 
this  low  wage  probably  corresponded  fairly  well  with  the 
value  of  the  service  rendered.  And  these  young  workers, 
with  their  stunted  minds  and  bodies,  would  remain  com- 
paratively inefficient  throughout  all  their  working  life. 

Each  new  study  of  the  problem  only  revealed  the  fact 
more  clearly  that,  wherever  introduced,  child  labor  was  dis- 
placing adult  labor.  As  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee puts  the  case,  in  one  of  its  unpublished  reports : 
"Young  women  have  been  taking  the  place  of  men  in  knit- 
ting and  weaving,  and  now  children  are  filling  places  for- 
merly held  by  women,  and  at  each  turn  the  wages  have 
fallen."  If,  then,  not  even  the  parents  themselves  are 
benefited  by  this  "slaughter  of  the  innocents,"  but  receive 
only  economic  harm,  in  the  long  run,  how  can  society  at 
large  be  justified  in  an  attitude  of  indifference? 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipo^-ipoj).  97 

It  is  not  always  a  sign  of  the  extreme  need  of  the  family 
when  the  children  are  put  to  work  at  an  early  age.  It  was 
found  that  they  often  entered  the  mills  because  their  mates 
had  done  so.  In  many  cases  lazy  or  drunken  parents  were 
making  use  of  this  means  of  support,  though  abundantly 
able  to  bear  the  burden  themselves.  The  number  of  instances 
in  which  the  child's  wages  were  sorely  needed  were  sur- 
prisingly few  and  far  between. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  note,  in  passing,  that  in  1904 
children  were  employed  in  at  least  seventy  different  kinds 
of  factories  alone,  not  to  speak  of  outside  occupations;  and 
in  considerable  numbers  in  five-sixths  of  the  counties  of  the 
state.  Nor  were  these  child  workers  necessarily  past  the 
legal  age.  They  were  simply  those  whose  parents  or  guar- 
dians had  managed  to  secure  for  them  employment  certifi- 
cates, though  sometimes  the  children  were  working  without 
any  certificates  w^hatever.  The  committee  had  reason  to 
speak  sharply  of  the  system  in  vogue  in  1904,  when  perjury 
on  the  part  of  parents  had  been  elevated  to  a  fine  art,  and 
when  the  examination  as  to  ability  to  read  and  write  the 
English  language  had  become  a  farce. 

"The  employment  certificate  as  now  issued,"  says  an 
unpublished  report  of  the  committee,  "is  the  effective  and 
final  weapon  of  defense  of  the  child  who  does  not  want  to 
go  to  school ;  of  the  parent  disposed  to  exploit  his  child  for 
selfish  purposes ;  of  the  employer  in  search  of  cheap  labor. 
The  employment  certificate  effectually  defeats  the  purpose 
of  the  compulsory  school  attendance  law,  and  of  the  factory 
law,  as  it  relates  to  children.  Children  of  eight,  nine,  ten, 
eleven  and  twelve  years,  armed  with  employment  certificates 
which  testify  to  their  having  reached  their  thirteenth  birth- 
day, may  wave  them  in  defiance  at  their  teachers  and  face 
with  indifference  truant  officers  or  factory  inspectors  who 
attempt  to  enforce  the  laws — the  laws  which  compel  school 
attendance  up  to  thirteen  years  and  prohibit  the  work  of 
children  under  that  age." 


98  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

An  "appalling  decrease  in  school  attendance  following 
the  first  grade,"  as  revealed  by  the  school  records  for  Phila- 
delphia, was  attributed  in  great  part  by  the  committee  to 
these  certificates.  This  decrease  was  shown  by  the  following 
per  cents  of  attendance  of  an  average  class  during  each  of 
the  prescribed  school  years  (6  to  13  years)  :  First  year,  100; 
second  year,  73;  third  year,  66;  fourth  year,  50;  fifth  year, 
42;  sixth  year,  29;  seventh  year,  20.  During  the  years  of 
compulsory  school  attendance  eighty  per  cent  had  dropped 
out;  only  twenty  per  cent  remained.  No  wonder  the  com- 
mittee asked  what  had  become  of  this  eighty  per  cent. 
After  making  a  liberal  allowance  for  deaths,  for  removals 
from  the  city  or  to  private  schools,  and  for  those  whose 
progress  had  been  checked  by  failure  to  secure  promotion,  it 
would  be  safe  to  assume  that  at  least  sixty-five  per  cent  o\ 
the  original  35,000  had  managed  to  evade  the  law  before 
reaching  the  thirteenth  birthday.  And  all  these  children  were, 
as  the  report  asserts,  either  ( i )  at  work,  on  fraudulently 
acquired  certificates;  or  (2)  at  work,  legally  or  illegally,  on 
no  certificates  at  all:  or  (3)  at  home,  for  some  domestic 
purpose.  Unfortunately,  this  record  for  Philadelphia  was 
almost  paralleled  in  other  industrial  centers,  especially  in 
the  mining  regions  of  the  state,  where  the  public  was  even 
more  indifferent. 

That  children  under  age  found  their  way  into  the  fac- 
tories was  admitted,  and  deplored,  by  the  employers  them- 
selves. A  prominent  manufacturer  of  Wilkes-Barre  in 
March  of  1904  wrote  to  Dr.  Woodward,  chairman  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee :  "There  is  no  doubt 
considerable  truth  in  the  statement  that  children  of  ten  and 
eleven  years  find  their  way  into  the  mills.  .  .  .  The 
parents  perjure  themselves  and  we  have  no  way  to  disprove 
their  sworn  statements,  and  if  the  parents  are  willing  to  go 
to  such  lengths  to  put  their  children  to  work  they  will 
manage  to  do  it  by  hook  or  by  crook,  no  matter  what  the 
laws."     That  this  manufacturer  was  not  vitally  interested 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (1903-1905).  99 

is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  only  improvement  in  the 
factory  law  he  had  to  suggest  was  one  which,  standing 
alone  and  without  change  in  the  enforcement  provisions, 
would  but  accentuate  the  desire  to  evade  the  statute,  namely, 
that  the  minimum  age  be  raised  to  fourteen  years. 

Bill  of  Child  Labor  Committee  {1905). 

With  this  material  gathered,  or  the  greater  part  of  it, 
the  next  logical  step  was  taken,  in  the  appointing  of  a  sub- 
committee which  should  draft  a  child  labor  bill.  This  com- 
mittee— consisting  of  Dr.  Woodward,  Miss  Richmond  and 
Miss  Piatt,  and  with  the  active  co-operation  of  Miss  Marot 
— held  numerous  conferences  with  various  city  and  state 
officials,  including  Factory  Inspector  Delaney,  and  actually 
redrafted  its  bill  twenty-two  times  before  submitting  it  to 
the  Legislature  of  1905.  Mr.  Alexander  Simpson,  Jr.,  who 
had  drafted  the  child  labor  bill  in  T903,  offered  valuable 
criticisms  on  this  one,  as  did  also  two  other  lawyers  of  dis- 
tinction (members  of  the  committee),  Mr.  Lyman  D.  Gilbert 
and  Mr.  J.  Percy  Keating. 

The  committee's  annual  report  for  1904-5 — which  is  a 
valuable  source  of  information  for  the  period  it  covers — 
informs  us^^  that  three  points  were  considered  of  primary 
importance  by  the  framers  of  this  bill : 

1.  A  true  age  limitation,  through  certificates  based  on 
record  evidence  of  age  rather  than  on  affidavits. 

2.  Prohibition  of  night  work  for  all  children  under 
sixteen  years. 

3.  Extension  of  legal  protection  to  all  children  regu- 
larly employed  in  industry  and  commerce. 

The  provisions  of  the  bill  bear  out  this  contention.  In 
fact,  on  comparing  this  child  labor  bill  with  the  one  of  1903, 
we  find  that  other  advances  than  the  three  enumerated  were 
to  be  postponed  till  a  "more  convenient  season."     For  ex- 

"P.  8. 


lOO  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

ample,  in  the  bill  of  1903  the  minimum  age  was  put  at  four- 
teen years,  but  in  1905  it  was  left  at  thirteen;  in  1903  the 
protected  workers  might  be  employed  only  ten  hours  a  day 
or  fifty-five  hours  a  week,  while  in  1905  the  hours  were 
twelve  a  day  or  sixty  a  week.  Tlie  limits  for  night  work 
were  the  same  in  each,  namely,  children  under  sixteen, 
and  nine  p.  m.  to  six  a.  m. ;  as,  also,  were  the  requirements 
that  child  workers  between  fourteen  and  sixteen  must  be 
able  to  read  and  write  simple  sentences  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, and  should  have  complied  with  the  education  laws  of 
the  commonwealth ;  while  the  possibility  of  a  medical  ex- 
amination lay  in  the  background.  Both  measures  required 
not  only  the  old-time  affidavit  of  age  from  parent  or  guar- 
dian, but  also  a  certificate  of  age  taken  from  public  or  churcTl 
records.  In  order  that  these  two  should  together  constitute' 
an  employment  certificate,  there  must  be  added — according 
to  the  bill  of  1903 — the  formal  approval  of  the  district  at- 
tendance officer  or  secretary  of  school  board ;  while  by  the 
bill  of  1905  the  matter  of  issuing  the  employment  certificate 
(also  including  both  age  affidavit  and  age  certificate)  was 
turned  over  to  the  school  authorities,  or  to  a  factory  inspec- 
tor. The  later  bill  contained  a  provision  not  found  in  the 
earlier  one,  setting  up  an  alternative  education  test  where  no 
proof  of  age  was  obtainable. 

Bill  of  Philadelphia  Central  Union  of  Textile  Workers 

(1905)- 
Another  active  and  deeply  interested  participant  in  this 
legislative  agitation  of  T905  was  the  Central  Union  of  Tex- 
tile Workers  of  Philadelphia.  At  a  regular  meeting  of  the 
union,  on  June  2,  1904,  a  temporary  committee  on  legisla- 
tion was  appointed,  consisting  of  three  members ;  and  on 
the  30th  of  the  next  October  a  permanent  "Trades  Union 
Legislative  Committee  of  Pennsylvania"  was  organized, 
with  an  executive  committee  of  seven.  In  the  report  issued 
later  by  this  Trades  Union  Legislative  Committee  we  are 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipo^-ipo^).  loi 

informed  that  fruitless  negotiations  were  entered  upon  with 
Dr.  Samuel  McCune  Lindsay,  representing  the  Pennsylvania 
Child  Labor  Committee ;  with  Senator  Penrose  and  Speaker 
W-alton,  and  with  Chief  Factory  Lispector  Delaney,  in  order 
to  "avoid  a  conflict  of  interests."  The  first  named  would 
only  "agree  to  a  composite  bill  with  the  fifty-five  hours' 
provision  omitted,  and  bring  that  up  on  the  floor  of  the 
Legislature  as  an  amendment,"  thus  avoiding  the  danger 
of  having  the  child  labor  bill  swamped  by  the  fifty-five-hour 
clause.  This  proposition  was  rejected  by  the  union.  The 
next  two  parties  to  be  approached  promised  everything — 
and  did  nothing.  The  last,  as  we  shall  soon  discover,  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  second  and  third.  The  bill  which 
the  Central  Union  of  Textile  Workers  was  so  industriously 
pushing,  with  the  active  assistance  of  Messrs.  McCollam, 
Hall,  Thornton,  Snee,  Donnelly  and  others,  provided :  ( i ) 
That  no  woman  or  minor  should  be  employed  in  any  factory, 
workshop,  store,  laundry,  renovating  works  or  printing  oflice, 
except  between  seven  and  twelve  a.  m.  and  between  one  p.  m. 
and  six  p.  m.,  and  not  after  twelve  o'clock  noon  on  Satur- 
days, thus  securing  a  fifty-five-hour  week  with  the  Saturday 
half-holiday;  and  (2)  that  the  minimum  age  for  child  labor 
in  the  above-mentioned  industries  be  raised  from  thirteen  to 
fourteen  years.  The  union  leaders  rightfully  claim  the  credit 
for  the  raising  of  the  minimum  age  to  fourteen,  which  was 
not  originally  contemplated  by  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor 
Committee  or  by  Inspector  Delaney.  But  the  fifty-five-hour 
provision,  on  which  their  hearts  were  set,  and  for  which  they 
had  led  a  six  months'  strike  not  long  before,  was  "lost  in  the 
shuffle"  when  the  final  compromise  was  effected. 

Bill  of  Chief  Factory  Inspector  Delaney  (ipo§). 

While  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee  and 
co-operating  societies  were  devoting  themselves  to  the  prepa- 
ration of  a  child  labor  bill,  and  the  Kensington  (Philadel- 
phia) textile  workers  were  actively  lobbying  for  their  fifty- 


I02  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

five-hour  measure,  Inspector  Delaney  and  his  advisers  were 
engag"ed  in  outHning  a  sort  of  code  which  should  touch  the 
field  of  factory  legislation  at  all  points.  As  first  drawn  up, 
Captain  Delaney's  bill  was  so  radical  in  places  as  to  stand 
little  chance  of  favorable  consideration  by  the  Legislature. 
For  example,  no  minor  of  either  sex  might  be  employed 
between  the  hours  of  seven  p.  m.  and  six  a.  m. ;  though  a 
proviso  was  later  inserted,  mainly  for  the  glass  factories, 
allowing  night  work  to  male  minors  under  sixteen  where  it 
was  supposedly  necessary  "to  prevent  waste  or  destruction 
of  said  material."  No  female,  or  minor  of  either  sex,  was 
to  be  employed  for  over  sixty  hours  in  any  one  week  or  over 
ten  hours  in  any  one  day,  the  last  clause  preventing  the 
employees  from  working  a  little  longer  each  of  the  other 
days  in  order  to  secure  a  Saturday  half-holiday.  The  Ken- 
sington people,  already  referred  to,  assert  that  this  "ten 
hours  in  any  one  day"  provision  was  planned  to  go  with  their 
"fifty-five  hours  in  any  one  week"  scheme.  And  in  proof 
of  their  assertion  they  produce  an  original  copy  of  a  written 
agreement  to  that  effect  between  their  leaders  and  Captain 
Delaney,  duly  signed  by  the  contracting  parties. 

No  provisos  to  exempt  cities  of  the  first  and  second 
class  in  the  matter  of  elevators,  fire-escapes  and  boilers  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Delaney  bill,  though  they  appear  in  the 
act  as  passed.  While  a  proviso  in  the  bill  which  would 
have  limited  the  operation  of  the  sweat  shop  clauses  to  a 
workshop  where  more  than  five  j)ersons  were  employed 
disappears  in  the  final  act.  And,  finally,  the  child  labor 
portion  of  Inspector  Delaney's  bill  followed  the  old  lines  as 
to  the  enforcement  clauses :  the  employment  certificate  to  be 
issued  by  any  person  having  authority  to  administer  oaths, 
as  formerly.  The  only  addition  to  the  old  law  worth  noting 
was  a  proviso — of  doubtful  value  because  optional  with  the 
examiner — that  "if  from  any  cause  the  party  administering 
the  oath  has  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  statement  made 
by  the  parent,  guardian  or  custodian  as  to  the  age  of  said 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipoj-igo^).  103 

child,"  a  certified  copy  of  birth,  baptism  or  circumcision  was 
to  be  required,  and  the  same  forwarded  at  once  to  the  chief 
factory  inspector. 

With  the  exception  of  the  clauses  already  noted.  Inspec- 
tor Delaney's  bill  was  incorporated  bodily  into  the  com- 
promise measure  finally  agreed  upon  by  the  Department  of 
Factory  Inspection  and  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee. It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  give  further  details 
at  this  point,  as  the  present  factory  law  (1905)  will  be 
discussed  in  detail. 

Public  Education  Association  Scholarships  (7905). 

In  order  to  meet  what  might  be  termed  the  "f>oor 
widow"  argument  against  raising  the  minimum  age  of  child 
labor  from  thirteen  to  fourteen  years,  so  far  at  least  as 
Philadelphia  was  concerned,  the  Public  Education  Associa- 
tion of  Philadelphia  addressed  a  letter,  on  March  7.  1905. 
to  the  chairman  of  the  House  committee  (Judiciary  Gen- 
eral) which  was  then  considering  the  new  factory  bill.  This 
communication  contained  a  pledge  on  the  part  of  the  Public 
Education  Association,  acting  for  certain  guarantors,  to 
provide  for  each  dependent  family  in  Philadelphia  affected 
by  the  law,  for  whom  other  solution  could  not  be  found,  a 
weekly  sum  equal  to  the  amount  the  child  would  be  able  to 
earn — usually  from  two  to  three  dollars,  and  to  continue  this 
"scholarship"  until  the  child  reached  the  legal  working  age. 

The  conditions  imposed  were:  (i)  That  the  father 
was  either  dead  or  incapacitated  from  supporting  his  family ; 
(2)  that  the  wages  of  the  child  (who  must  be  between 
twelve  and  fourteen  years  of  age)  were  necessary  for  the 
adequate  support  of  the  family,  after  the  family  resources 
had  been  developed  by  careful  investigation  and  assistance; 
and  (3)  that  a  weekly  certificate  of  regular  attendance  and 
diligence  in  study,  secured  from  principal  or  teacher,  was 


I04  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

presented  to  the  person  acting  as  agent  for  the  association. 
The  experience  of  Chicago  was  cited  in  the  letter,  where  the 
women's  ckibs  had  made  a  similar  guarantee,  and  where  it 
was  discovered  that  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  applicants 
really  came  within  its  provisions. 

It  was  hoped  that  this  "scholarship"  idea  would  be  taken 
up  by  the  other  large  cities  of  the  state,  wherever  the  need 
was  apparent.  But  whether  the  example  were  followed  or 
not,  it  was  intended  that  the  offer  should  smooth  the  way 
for  the  passage  of  the  bill.  How  much  effect  it  had  in  this 
direction  is  problematical,  but  it  figures  as  one  of  the  stones 
not  left  unturned  in  the  fight  for  a  child  labor  law  that 
should  be  good  for  something. 

The  prompt  passing  of  the  compromise  bill,  and  the 
signing  of  the  act  on  May  2,  1905,  brought  to  an  end  a  most 
interesting  and  successful  child  labor  campaign,  lasting  over 
two  years;  and  at  the  same  time  set  the  seal  of  the  com- 
monwealth on  a  factory  act  which,  taken  as  a  whole,  is 
worthy  of  commendation. 

This  legislation  was  not  secured  without  well-organized 
and  determined  effort  on  the  part  of  those  citizens  who 
composed  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,  and 
the  expert  assistance  which  they  employed.  Working 
through  the  Pennsylvania  committee,  and  back  of  all  its 
efforts,  stood  the  national  committee,  which  concentrated  its 
attention  for  a  considerable  period  upon  the  legislative  situa- 
tion in  Pennsylvania.  The  secretary  of  this  latter  com- 
mittee. Professor  Samuel  McCune  Lindsay,  was  present  at 
Harrisburg  during  the  critical  periods  of  the  bill's  history. 
And  the  Pennsylvania  committee's  report  keeps  well  within 
the  truth  when  it  asserts  (p.  9)  :  *Tt  was  Dr.  Lindsay's 
skilful  handling  of  the  situation  at  Harrisburg  which  gave 
Pennsylvania  the  new  statute." 

With  the  historical  part  of  this  work  on  Pennsylvania 
factory  legislation  brought  to  an  end,   there   remains  the 


Child  Labor  Campaign  (ipo_^-ipoj).  105 

necessity  of  making  a  careful  analysis  of  the  new  factory 
code,  section  by  section.  By  such  a  piecemeal  operation, 
alone,  will  it  be  possible  to  discover  the  elements  of  strength 
and  weakness  in  what  is  really  a  complex  piece  of  social 
legislation.  Only  through  constructive  criticism  of  what  is 
may  we  hope  to  secure  a  point  of  departure  for  what  is  to 
be.  In  the  following  discussion  the  child  labor  clauses  will 
be  reserved  for  the  last,  as  they  are  new  and  untried  and 
take  us  into  the  dangerous  realm  of  prophecy. 


PART  II. 
ADMINISTRATION 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
Present  Factory  Law  (Exclusive  of  Child  Labor). 

Establishment  Defined. 

Section  i.  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  the  term  "establish- 
ment," where  used  for  the  purpose  of  this  act,  shall  mean  any 
place  within  this  Commonwealth  other  than  where  domestic, 
coal  mining  or  farm  labor  is  employed ;  where  men,  women  or 
children  are  engaged,  and  paid  a  salary  or  wages,  by  any  per- 
son, firm  or  corporation,  and  where  such  men,  women  or  chil- 
dren are  employees,  in  the  general  acceptance  of  the  term. 

Presumably,  only  domestic  service  and  farm  labor  were 
intended  to  be  exempted  from  state  supervision,  mining 
being  already  taken  care  of  by  a  separate  code  and  a  separate 
department  of  inspection.  "For  the  first  time  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, bowling  alleys,  the  messenger  service  and  theatres 
are  brought  under  the  provision  of  the  child  labor  law."^ 
But  soon  after  the  act  was  passed  the  Attorney  General  ruled 
that  the  child  labor  provisions  did  not  apply  to  newsboys, 
even  when  they  were  regularly  employed  as  carriers  and  not 
selling  on  their  own  account.  In  the  case^  which  called 
forth  the  opinion  the  boys  were  employed  for  only  about 
one  hour  a  day,  in  the  late  afternoon,  so  that  their  schooling 

'Second  Annual  Report  of  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee, p.  II. 

'That  of  the  Reading  Telegram,  an  evening  paper.  Opinion  rendered 
July  21,  1905. 

(107) 


lo8  Factory  Legislation  in  Pcmisyhwiia. 

was  not  in  the  least  interfered  with.  And  they  certainly 
were  not,  as  the  opinion  pointed  out,  employed  "in  or  about 
an  establishment  where  the  attendance  of  the  employees  and 
the  receipt  of  wages  by  them  constitutes  a  continuous  daily 
employment  and  the  main  means  of  support;"  nor  was  the 
employment  "of  a  kind  which  confines  or  restrains  them  as 
employees  are  confined  or  restrained  in  a  manufacturing  or 
kindred  establishment."  The  Attorney  General  took  care, 
however,  to  limit  his  ruling  to  the  particular  case  in  hand, 
and  to  state  that  he  was  "not  dealing  with  general  proposi- 
tions of  the  employment  of  minors  under  the  age  of  four- 
teen." 

This  opinion  has  not  been  subjected  to  the  test  of  a 
court  decision,  the  Factory  Inspection  Department  not  only 
accepting  it  unhesitatingly,  but  even  attempting  to  extend 
the  scope  of  the  exemption  to  messenger  boys  in  the  employ 
of  the  great  railway  corporations.^  Even  with  this  newsboy 
exemption,  the  scope  of  the  act  is  far  more  comprehensive 
than  if  the  attempt  had  been  made,  as  in  earlier  statutes,  to 
enumerate  all  the  varieties  of  places  to  which  it  should  apply. 

Seats  for  Women. 

Section  7.  Every  person,  firm  or  corporation  employing 
girls  or  adult  women,  in  any  establishment,  shall  provide  suit- 
able seats  for  their  use,  and  shall  permit  such  use  when  the 
employees  are  not  necessarily  engaged  in  active  duties. 

The  only  weakness  in  this  section,  and  one  that  is  hard 
to  overcome,  is  the  latitude  left  the  employer  by  the  term 
"necessarily."  It  is  apparent  to  any  observant  customer 
that  most  of  the  stores  where  he  is  trading  construe  this 
word  very  liberally;  in  some  cases  so  liberally  that  no  seats 

*Mr.  Delaney  goes  so  far,  in  one  instance,  as  to  express  his  "heart- 
felt sympathy  for  those  whom  the  law  injuriously  affects."  And  he 
informs  the  mother  that  she  may  take  the  boy  and  his  (Delaney's) 
letter  to  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company's  office  and  "assure  the 
officials  that  he  will  not  be  disturbed  by  this  department." 


Present  Factory  Law.  109 

at  all  are  provided  at  many  of  the  counters,  the  saleswomen 
(we  must  infer)  being  always  "necessarily  engaged  in  active 
duties."  And  in  reputable  stores  the  floor-walker  will 
sometimes  dare  to  sneer  openly  at  a  tired  saleswoman  who 
ventures  to  make  use  of  the  seat  provided.  Some  stores 
and  some  factories  are  generous  in  this  regard,  and  seats 
are  placed  at  every  available  point.  The  Department  of 
Factory  Inspection  is  not  over  zealous  in  enforcing  this  pro- 
vision, though  a  few  of  the  deputies  make  frequent  and 
ingenious  suggestions  as  to  the  possible  location  of  seats  at 
factory  machines.  The  Consumers'  League  of  Pennsylvania 
is  bringing  pressure  to  bear  on  the  department  stores  in  the 
larger  cities,  and  with  good  results. 

To  ilet  A  ceo  mmodations. 

Section  8.  Every  person,  firm  or  corporation  employing 
males  and  females  in  the  same  establishment,  shall  provide  for 
such  employees  suitable  and  proper  wash  and  dressing-rooms, 
and  water-closets  for  males  and  females ;  and  the  water-closets, 
wash  and  dressing-rooms  used  by  females  shall  not  adjoin  those 
used  by  males,  but  shall  be  built  entirely  away  from  them,  and 
shall  be  properly  screened  and  ventilated ;  and  all  water-closets 
shall  at  all  times  be  kept  in  a  clean  and  sanitary  condition. 

In  some  parts  of  the  state  water-closets  are  now  kept  in 
fair  condition,  and  those  for  males  are  separated  from  those 
for  females.  But  flagrant  violations  of  the  law  are  particu- 
larly in  evidence  in  certain  of  the  inspection  districts  of 
Philadelphia  and  in  the  anthracite  mining  region.  Some  of 
the  deputies  complain  that  the  section  is  not  specific  enough 
in  its  requirements,  either  as  to  water-closets  or  as  to  wash 
and  dressing  rooms :  that  such  an  expression  as  "suitable 
and  proper,"  for  example,  leaves  too  much  leeway  for  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  between  the  inspector  and  the  one 
responsible  for  improvements.  But  the  example  of  a  state 
like  Massachusetts,  where  powers  as  general  in  their  word- 
ing are  found  ample  to  insure  satisfactory  conditions,  would 


no  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

indicate  that  the  enforcement  in  Pennsylvania  may  be  as 
thoroughgoing  as  the  head  of  the  department  wills  that  it 
shall  be.  A  few  model  establishments  in  the  state  are  now 
setting  an  example  which  all  the  others  should  be  made  to 
follow. 

Noon  Hour  Intermission. 

Section  9.  Not  less  tlian  one  hour  shall  be  allowed  for  the 
noonday  meal  in  any  establishment.  But  the  Chief  Factory 
Inspector  may,  for  good  cause,  reduce  the  time  for  the  noon- 
day meal  in  establishments  where  all  the  other  provisions  of  this 
act  are  observed,  which  entail  duties  upon  the  part  of  the 
employers. 

A  few  deputies  are  active  in  the  enforcement  of  this 
section  and  inquire  into  the  matter  at  every  factory  or  other 
establishment,  while  others  seem  to  forget  about  the  noon 
hour  restriction  and  seldom  ask  about  it.  One  deputy  says 
that  he  has  no  need  to  inquire,  for  the  reason  that  he  would 
surely  be  informed  confidentially  in  case  the  employer  under- 
took to  shorten  tlie  noon  hour  arbitrarily. 

At  almost  all  factories  where  women  and  young  persons 
are  employed  the  desire  for  a  Saturday  half-holiday  is  keen : 
and  where  the  working  week  is  a  sixty-hour  one  the  workers 
simply  must  begin  a  little  earlier  each  morning,  and  also 
shorten  the  noon  hour,  in  order  to  secure  this  holiday.  For 
overtime  work  in  the  morning  and  at  night  no  permission 
is  needed,  provided  the  twelve-hour  day  and  the  sixty-hour 
week  limitations  of  section  3  are  complied  with. 

The  labor  unions  deplore  the  granting  of  a  shorter  time 
permit  for  the  noon  period,  though  recognizing  that  the 
demand  for  it  comes  from  the  employees  themselves.  The 
unions  contend  that  they  cannot  make  headway  against  such 
an  insidious  performance  as  working  a  little  overtime  each 
day,  while  they  could  prevent  Saturday  afternoon  labor, 
whether  it  had  been  made  up  for  on  the  preceding  five  days 
or  not.     In  other  words,  if  onlv  a  straiirht  ten  hours  and  no 


Present  Factory  Law.  1 1 1 

more  were  to  be  worked  each  day  up  to  Saturday,  the  unions 
beh'eve  they  could  force  the  stopping  of  work  at  noon  on  that 
day,  thus  securing  the  fifty-five-hour  week  and  the  Saturday 
half-hoh'day  for  all  alike. 

Posting  of  Notices. 

Section  io.  Every  person,  firm  or  corporation  employing 
men,  women  or  children,  in  any  establishment,  shall  post  and 
keep  posted  in  a  conspicuous  place,  in  every  room  where  such 
help  is  employed,  a  printed  copy  of  the  factory  laws,  a  printed 
notice  stating  the  number  of  hours  per  day  for  each  day  of 
the  week  required  of  svich  persons ;  and  in  every  room  where 
children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  are  employed,  a  list  of  their 
names,  with  their  ages. 

This  section  is  very  generally  observed  in  factories  and 
workshops,  where  it  is  most  needed.  The  old  factory  law, 
printed  on  a  big  sheet,  was  often  framed  and  nearly  always 
conspicuously  placed.  The  new  law,  being  in  pamphlet 
form,  is  suspended  by  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  a  copy  in 
each  room.  The  notice  stating  the  number  of  working  hours 
a  day  is  also  posted,  together  with  a  list  of  all  children 
requiring  employment  certificates.  In  retail  stores  the  above 
requirements  are  not  nearly  so  well  lived  up  to. 

Safeguarding  of  Machinery. 

Section  ii.  The  owner  or  person  in  charge  of  an  estab- 
lishment where  machinery  is  used  shall  provide  belt-shifters  or 
other  mechanical  contrivances  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  on 
or  off  belts  or  pulleys.  Wherever  practicable,  all  machinery 
shall  be  provided  with  loose  pulleys.  All  vats,  pans,  saws,  plan- 
ers, cogs,  gearing,  belting,  shafting,  set-screws,  grindstones, 
emery-wheels,  fly-wheels,  and  machinery  of  every  description 
shall  be  properly  guarded.  The  floor  space  of  no  working-room 
in  any  establishment  shall  be  so  crowded  with  machinery  as 
thereby  to  cause  risk  to  the  life  or  limb  of  an  employee,  nor  shall 
there  be  in  any  establishment  machinery  in  excess  of  the  sus- 
taining power  of  the  floors  and  walls  thereof.  No  person  shall 
remove  or  make  inefi^ective  any  safeguard  around  or  attached 


112  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

to  machinery,  vats  or  pans  while  the  same  are  in  use,  except 
for  the  purpose  of  immediately  making  repairs  thereto,  and  all 
such  safeguards  so  removed  shall  be  properly  replaced.  Ex- 
haust fans  of  sufficient  power,  or  other  sufficient  devices,  shall 
be  provided  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  off  poisonous  fumes 
and  gases,  and  dust  from  emery-wheels,  grindstones  and  other 
machinery  creating  dust.  If  a  machine  or  any  part  thereof  is 
in  a  dangerous  condition,  or  is  not  properly  guarded,  the  use 
thereof  may  be  prohibited  by  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  or 
by  his  deputy,  and  a  notice  to  that  effect  shall  be  attached 
thereto.  Such  notice  shall  not  be  removed  until  the  machinery 
is  made  safe  and  the  required  safeguards  are  provided,  and  in 
the  meantime  such  unsafe  or  dangerous  machinery  shall  not 
be  used. 

Section  1 1  contains  what  should  be  regarded  as  the 
very  heart  of  the  inspector's  duties.  Any  deputy  not  suffi- 
ciently familiar  with  machinery  to  be  able  to  detect  omissions 
in  its  proper  safeguarding  and  to  suggest  remedies  therefor, 
is  utterly  unfit  for  the  office.  Nor  is  this  a  light  requirement 
or  an  unimportant  one,  since  it  calls  for  the  skill  of  an 
expert. 

It  is  a  fair  statement  of  the  case  to  assert  that  this 
vitally  important  function  is  one  which,  taking  the  depart- 
ment as  a  w^hole,  is  sadly  neglected.  And  it  is  equally  safe 
to  attribute  this  negligence  to  two  main  causes :  politics  and 
incompetency,  of  which  the  latter  is  the  corollary  of  the 
former.  In  the  fall  of  1905,  Mr.  Hugh  O'Donnell,  then 
special  deputy  for  the  Pittsburg  region,  declared^  that  "there 
has  not  been  placed  in  the  mills  of  the  Pittsburg  district  one 
device  for  lessening  the  chances  of  taking  human  life  except 
those  ordered  by  the  coroner  after  some  poor  fellow  had  lost 
his  life."  He  made  the  further  assertion^  that  3,885  acci- 
dents had  occurred  in  the  mills  and  factories  of  that  city 
during  the  preceding  year,  of  which  thirty-one  per  cent  were 
fatal;  and  that  only  three  of  these  accidents  were  investi- 

*See  Philadelphia  Record,  September  12,  1905. 
'See  Philadelphia  Record,  September  ir,  1905. 


Present  Factory  Law.  113 

gated  by  the  department,  and  those  by  himself.  The  state- 
ment is  so  incredible  that  one  feels  like  deducting  half  for 
possible  exaggeration  due  to  the  strained  relations  then 
existing  between  O'Donnell  and  the  chief  inspector. 

It  is  easy  to  fling  statistics,  especially  of  the  unsup- 
ported and  sweeping  variety.  And  if  the  conditions  which 
come  under  our  own  observation  were  not  so  shocking  we 
would  remain  incredulous.  The  records  of  the  child  labor 
committee  and  of  other  societies  interested  in  the  child 
worker  are  full  of  cases  of  terrible  suffering  and  permanent 
incapacitation  for  self-support,  due  to  preventable  accidents ; 
and  where  no  prosecutions  by  the  department  followed,  and 
no  relief  was  afforded  the  sufferer  by  the  offending  employer 
except  as  the  result  of  a  suit  for  damages.  Philadelphia's 
accident  record  is  as  damaging  to  the  Department  of  Factory 
Inspection  as  is  that  of  Pittsburg,  when  the  former  city's 
proportionately  larger  force  of  deputies  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration. But  the  safeguarding  of  machinery,  shamefully 
as  it  is  neglected  in  Pennsylvania,  is  far  better  looked  after 
than  is  that  equally  important  provision  of  this  section  for 
exhaust  fans  to  carry  away  poisonous  gases,  emery-wheel 
dust,  and  the  like,  whose  deadly  effects  are  so  manifest  in 
the  form  of  tuberculosis. 

In  what  has  been  said  as  to  the  protection  of  employees 
from  dangerous  machinery,  exception  must  be  made  in  favor 
of  that  small  minority  of  the  inspectors  who  are  competent 
and  fearless.  The  writer  has  one  deputy  in  mind  whose  eye 
travels  unerringly  to  the  point  of  slightest  danger,  and 
whose  command  in  regard  thereto  is  intelligent  and  im- 
perative. But,  in  going  about  with  the  deputies,  one  is  often 
impressed  with  the  painful  truth  that  the  sort  of  machinery 
with  which  they  have  the  best  working  knowledge  is  that 
of  their  respective  wards  and  voting  precincts.  This  lack  of 
technical  training  will  be  referred  to  again  in  another  con- 
nection. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  it  is  of  interest  to  note  the 


114  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

fact  that  the  machinery  which  comes  from  England,  where 
the  Department  of  Factory  Inspection  is  ahnost  an  ideal  one 
and  where  public  opinion  is  educated  in  this  matter,  is  far 
better  guarded  than  is  the  machinery  turned  out  by  Amer- 
ican manufacturers.  A  knowledge  of  this  fact  forces  the 
conclusion  that  America's  worship  of  industrialism  has  been 
so  absorbing  as  to  blind  her  to  the  crying  evils  of  the  system  : 
evils  which  are  the  greater  disgrace  because  so  unnecessary. 

Elevators. 

Section  12.  The  owner,  agent,  lessee,  superintendent,  or 
other  person  having  charge  or  managerial  control  of  any  estab- 
lishment, hotel,  hospital,  apartment  house,  or  other  building, 
where  elevators,  hoisting  shafts,  lifts  or  well-holes  are  used, 
shall  cause  the  same  to  be  properly  and  substantially  enclosed, 
secured  or  guarded ;  and  shall  provide  such  proper  traps  or 
automatic  doors,  so  fastened  in  or  at  all  elevator-ways,  except 
elevators  enclosed  on  all  sides,  as  to  form  a  substantial  sur- 
face when  closed,  and  so  constructed  as  to  open  and  close  by 
action  of  the  elevator  in  its  passage,  either  ascending  or  de- 
scending. The  cable,  gearing  or  other  apparatus  of  elevators, 
bolsters,  or  lifts,  shall  be  kept  in  a  safe  condition :  Provided, 
That  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not  apply  to  cities  of 
the  first  and  second  class. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  elevator  section  is  wide  in 
its  application,  extending  as  it  does  over  all  manner  of 
buildings  requiring  elevators.  It  will  also  be  noted  that 
cities  of  the  first  and  second  class — namely,  Philadelphia, 
Pittsburg  and  Scranton — are  specifically  exempt  from  its 
restrictions.  The  reason  for  this  exemption  is  that  in  those 
cities  only  are  there  distinct  departments  of  public  safety, 
which  are  supposed  to  look  after  elevators.  Section  22  does 
the  same  thing  as  to  the  fire-escape  provisions  of  the  factory 
law;  while  section  19,  though  not  in  express  terms,  frees 
those  cities  from  the  boiler  inspection  recpiirements.  Com- 
ment on  this  threefold  exemption  is  reserved  for  section  22. 


Present  Factory  Law.  115 

Wherever  the  department  has  jurisdiction,  elevator  shafts 
are  fairly  well  guarded  by  automatic  gates  and  trapdoors, 
and  the  cables  are  kept  in  a  generally  safe  condition. 

Light  and  Sanitation. 

Section  13.  The  owner,  agent,  lessee,  or  other  person  hav- 
ing charge  or  managerial  control  of  any  establishment,  shall 
provide  or  cause  to  be  provided,  not  less  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  cubic  feet  of  air-space  for  each  and  every  person  in 
every  work-room  in  said  establishment,  where  persons  are 
employed,  and  shall  provide  that  all  work-rooms,  halls  and 
stairways  in  said  establishment  be  kept  in  a  clean  and  sanitary 
condition  and  properly  lighted. 

The  two  hundred  and  fifty  cubic  feet  of  air  space  for 
each  worker  is  usually  provided,  though  it  is  easy  to  find 
factories  where  this  is  not  observed.  Moreover,  in  factories 
where  there  is  no  overcrowding  the  windows  are  often  kept 
closed,  sometimes  on  account  of  the  fabric,  so  that  the  air 
becomes  vitiated;  but  this  is  the  exception  rather  than  the 
rule.  The  inspectors  complain  that  the  latter  part  of  this 
section  resembles  section  8  in  being  too  indefinitely  worded : 
that  "clean  and  sanitary  condition,"  and  "properly  lighted," 
are  both  expressions  which  leave  so  wide  a  latitude  as  to 
deter  the  deputy  from  insisting  upon  his  own  standard  of 
"sweetness  and  light."  But  to  this  complaint  the  same 
answer  must  be  made  as  in  section  8.  No  doubt  a  few  prose- 
cutions would  be  necessary  to  convince  rebellious  owners  or 
superintendents  that  the  courts  will  uphold  any  reasonable 
demands  made  by  the  inspectors  in  the  interest  of  health 
and  morals.  The  abominable  condition,  from  a  sanitary 
standpoint,  of  many  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  factories 
especially,  is  a  standing  indictment  of  the  department  which 
has  allowed  such  a  state  of  affairs  to  continue.  Some  of  the 
worst  factories  in  Philadelphia  have  been  compelled,  of  late. 
to  do  better  in  the  matter  of  cleanliness  and  sanitation. 


ii6  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Szveat  Shops. 

Section  14.  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  or  sale  of  clothing  or  other  wearing  apparel, 
cigars  or  cigarettes,  shall  bargain  or  contract  with  any  person, 
firm  or  corporation  for  the  manufacture,  or  partial  manufac- 
ture, of  any  of  said  articles  or  goods  where  the  same  are  to 
be  made  in  any  kitchen,  living-room  or  bed-room  in  any  tene- 
ment house  or  dwelling  house,  except  where  the  persons  bar- 
gaining or  contracting  to  make  or  partially  make  any  of  the 
aforesaid  articles  or  goods  are  resident  members  of  the  family, 
residing  in  such  tenement  house  or  dwelling  house  where  the 
said  articles  or  goods  are  to  be  made  or  partially  made,  and 
who  have  furnished  the  person,  firm  or  corporation  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  or  sale  of  said  articles  or  goods,  and  with 
whom  the  bargain  or  contract  is  to  be  made,  a  certificate  from 
the  board  of  health  of  the  city  or  town  in  which  such  tenement 
house  or  dwelling  house  is  situated,  that  the  same  is  free  from 
any  infectious  or  contagious  disease ;  which  certificate  may  be 
revoked  by  the  board  of  health  whenever  the  exigencies  of  the 
case  shall  require:  Provided,  That  the  term  "family"  in  this 
section  shall  include  only  the  parents  and  their  children,  or  the 
children  of  either. 

Section  15.  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  or  sale  of  any  of  the  articles  or  goods  enumerated 
in  section  fourteen  of  this  act  shall  bargain  or  contract  with 
any  person,  firm  or  corporation  for  the  manufacture,  or  partial 
manufacture,  of  any  of  the  said  articles  or  goods  in  any  work- 
shop, not  part  of  a  tenement  or  dwelling  house,  unless  the  said 
workshop  shall  have  been  inspected  by  the  Chief  Factory  In- 
spector or  by  one  of  his  deputies,  and  who  shall  have  issued  a 
printed  permit  to  the  person  in  charge  of  such  workshop,  stating 
that  the  same  is  in  a  clean  and  safe  and  sanitary  condition,  and 
fixing  the  maximum  limit  to  the  number  of  persons  who  may  be 
employed  therein ;  the  permit  to  be  posted  and  kept  posted  in  a 
conspicuous  place  in  such  workshop:  Provided,  That  this  sec- 
tion shall  not  apply  to  any  workshop  wherein  the  aforesaid 
articles  or  goods  are  manufactured  for  the  general  trade,  and 
are  to  be  sold  and  delivered  in  or  upon  the  premises,  and  are 
not  manufactured,  or  partially  manufactured,  under  a  bargain 
or  contract  with  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  employed  in 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the  article  aforesaid. 

Section    16.  Whenever   the   sanitary   conditions    of   any 


Present  Factory  Law.  117 

workshop,  as  defined  in  section  fifteen,  is  dangerous  to  the 
heahh  and  safety  of  the  employees  therein  or  to  the  pubhc,  the 
Chief  Factory  Inspector  or  his  deputy  shall  cancel  the  permit 
aforesaid,  and  shall  order  that  the  workshop  be  vacated  until 
the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  have  been  complied  with  and  the 
workshop  restored  to  proper  sanitary  condition. 

These  sections  are  the  old  sweat  shop  act,  in  a  nutshell. 
It  should  be  noticed  that  a  wise  distinction  is  drawn  between 
a  tenement  or  dwelling  house,  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  work 
shop,  on  the  other.  Only  a  single  family  may  work  in  the 
first,  and  its  supervision  is  placed  with  the  local  board  of 
health ;  while  no  restriction  as  to  outsiders  is  placed  on  the 
second,  and  its  oversight  is  left  with  the  Factory  Inspection 
Department.  The  drastic  provision  in  the  sweat  shop  laws 
of  1899  and  1901,  allowing  the  confiscation  and  destruction 
of  all  clothing  found  being  made  in  unsanitary  places  or 
where  there  were  contagious  or  infectious  diseases,  is 
omitted  from  this  act.  It  may,  however,  be  regarded  as  in 
full  force  and  effect  for  work  shops,  since  it  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  any  provisions  of  the  new  law ;  but  tenement 
houses,  having  now  come  under  local  jurisdiction,  are  prob- 
ably no  longer  affected  by  it.  The  idea  of  destroying  all 
clothing  which  is  being  made  where  contagious  disease 
exists  is  coming  to  be  regarded  as  unnecessary — since  dis- 
infection will  answer  the  purpose  of  safeguarding  the  public 
health,  as  a  sheer  economic  waste,  and  as  failing  to  provide 
the  proper  punishment  for  the  offense. 

Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  are  the  only  sweat  shop 
localities  in  Pennsylvania.  In  the  Greater  Pittsburg  the 
conditions  have  been  thoroughly  bad.  Special  Inspector 
O'Donnell  made  some  startling  disclosures,  not  long  ago, 
about  some  of  these  shops,  where  indecency  was  paving  the 
way  to  immorality.  And  the  cellar  factories  where  so  many 
of  the  famous  "Pittsburg  stogy"  cigars  are  manufactured 
are  equally  in  need  of  stricter  supervision. 

In  Philadelphia,  where  over  twenty  articles  are  manu- 


ii8  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

factured,  in  whole  or  in  part,  in  tenement  or  dwelling 
houses,  the  story  of  sweat  shop  regulation  and  control  is 
one  not  creditable  to  the  Department  of  Factory  Inspection. 
Shortly  after  the  first  sweat  shop  law  (1895)  was  enacted, 
one  of  the  deputies  fell  into  a  habit  which  we  can  scarcely 
condemn — that  of  issuing  almost  any  order  to  the  foreign 
workers  that  seemed  for  their  good;  and  these  orders  were 
promptly  obeyed,  until  the  opportunity  came  to  resume  the 
old  practices.  It  was  a  daily  fight,  in  which  the  unfortunate 
worker  felt  himself  caught  between  a  police  officer  on  the 
one  hand  and  a  heartless  employer  on  the  other. 

The  writer  has  listened  to  some  pitiful  tales  of  the 
brutal  callousness  of  the  contractor,  even  when,  as  in  one 
instance,  that  contractor  represented  one  of  the  most  respec- 
table stores  in  Philadelphia.  This  Chestnut  Street  clothing 
house — which  long  advertised  "no  sweat  shop  work,"  and 
whose  salesmen  were  ostentatiously  taking  their  customers 
to  the  top  floor  to  show  them  the  light,  airy  tailor  shop 
where  all  their  work  was  done — was  driving  the  sharpest 
possible  bargains  Avith  defenseless  victims  who  must  work 
or  starve.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  record  that  within  the  past 
year  this  particular  establishment  has  fallen  into  the  clutches 
of  the  law,  through  its  violations  of  the  child  labor  code,  and 
been  heavily  fined.  But  this  store,  it  should  be  remembered, 
differed  from  the  other  big  clothing  houses  only  in  its 
Pharisaism — and  it  had  no  monopoly  of  that ! 

But  to  return  to  our  honest  inspector,  who  really  cared 
whether  his  people  lived  or  died.  He  was  soon  called  away 
to  a  higher  salary  if  not  a  wider  field  of  usefulness,  and  his 
successors  have  not  lived  up  to  the  example  he  set.  Permits 
have  been  exchanged  for  hard  cash :  not  granted  as  of  right 
because  the  law's  conditions  had  been  complied  with.  The 
state  of  afifairs  engendered  by  negligent  inspection  at  last 
became  so  malodorous  that  Captain  Delaney  recently  sent 
two  of  his  inspectors,  upon  whom  he  thought  he  could 
depend,    into  the  Manayunk  district,   where  they  speedily 


Present  Factory  Law.  119 

unearthed  some  unpleasant  facts  about  factories  and  work- 
shops. The  latter  were  found  to  be  unsanitary  to  the  last 
degree,  even  where  expensive  clothing  was  l^eing  made. 
Equally  deplorable  conditions  exist  in  the  southeast  section 
of  the  city. 

The  Board  of  Health  in  Philadelphia,  with  an  al^surdly 
inadequate  force  of  inspectors,  is  making  a  heroic  but  futile 
attempt  to  grapple  with  the  tenement  house  end  of  this  sweat 
shop  evil.  As  the  law  does  not  require  that  the  bureau  of 
health  permits  shall  be  conspicuously  posted,  they  are  rarely 
in  sight,  and  apparently  are  regarded  by  the  workers  as 
transferable  from  one  house  to  another.  Children  ten  to 
fourteen  years  of  age,  including  "half-timers"  in  the  public 
schools,  continue  as  of  old  to  spend,  contrary  to  law,  many 
a  weary  hour  at  the  sweater's  toil. 

After  all,  is  not  Mrs.  Florence  Kelley  right  when  she 
says :®  "It  is  utterly  impossible  to  keep  the  system  of  manu- 
facture in  the  tenements,  and  to  avoid  its  evil  consequences." 
And  why  is  this  system  kept  in  the  homes  of  the  defenseless 
workmen  and  workwomen  ?  Mrs.  Kelley  has  told  us  exactly 
why.'^  "These  materials  [of  the  sweaters'  industry]  are 
owned  by  rich  and  powerful  employers,  strongly  organized 
locally  and  nationally,  and  are  foisted  upon  the  meager 
dwellings  of  the  poor  solely  for  the  purpose  of  saving  to  the 
employers  the  cost  of  heat,  light,  cleaning  and,  far  more 
important,  rent  of  workrooms.  For  the  convenience  of  the 
powerful,  the  weakest  industrial  factors  in  the  community 
.     have  been  invaded  by  industry  and  inspectors." 

But  while  waiting  for  public  opinion  to  reach  the  plane 
of  the  ideal,  a  step  in  the  right  direction  might  be  taken  by 
a  revision  of  the  present  law  that  should  hedge  about  the 
owner  of  the  goods  with  so  many  restrictions  as  to  reduce 
materially  the  output  of  tenement  manufacture.   The  follow- 

'Some  Ethical  Gains  Through  Legislation,  p.  238. 
'Some  Ethical  Gains  Through  Legislation,  pp.  245-6. 


I20  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

ing  suggestions  are  offered,  as  being  in  line  with  the  more 
advanced  thinking  on  this  particular  phase  of  the  factory 
law: 

Regulations  for  Tenement  Maxntifacture. 

1.  No  room  or  apartment  in  tenement  or  dwelling 
house  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  making,  altering  or 
repairing  articles  of  any  description,  for  sale,  except  by 
immediate  members  of  family  dwelling  therein. 

2.  Such  family  to  procure  license  from  Department  of 
Factory  Inspection,  the  same  to  be  issued  to  some  adult 
member  of  family. 

3.  Said  license  to  be  granted  only  on  presentation  of 
certificate  from  local  Board  of  Health  that  house  contains 
no  infectious  or  contagious  disease,  and  after  factory  inspec- 
tor has  ascertained  by  personal  inspection  that  apartments 
occupied  by  applicant,  as  well  as  public  parts  of  building 
(halls,  stairs,  etc.),  are  in  a  clean  and  sanitary  condition, 
and  well  lighted  and  ventilated.  Factory  inspector  to  notify 
Board  of  Health  immediately  on  granting  of  such  license. 

4.  No  license  to  be  transferable  from  one  person  or 
house  to  another. 

5.  License  to  be  valid  for  six  months  only,  and  renew- 
able only  after  reinspection  by  factory  inspector;  and  to  be 
revocable  by  Departemnt  of  Factory  Inspection  at  miy  time 
for  failure  to  comply  with  provisions  of  the  law. 

6.  License  to  be  shown  on  every  occasion  to  person 
giving  out  unfinished  articles  of  merchandise  or  materials 
for  same,  whether  such  person  be  owner  or  sub-contractor. 

7.  Every  owner  of  articles  so  given  out,  and  every  sub- 
contractor, to  keep  register  of  names  and  addresses,  plainly 
written  in  English,  of  all  persons  so  contracted  with  by 
owner  or  sub-contractor :  copies  thereof  to  be  sent  at  regular 
intervals  to  local  Board  of  Health  and  to  Department  of 
Factory  Inspection. 


Present  Factory  Law.  121 

8.  Articles  of  merchandise  found  in  foregoing  places 
when  these  places  are  unsanitary,  or  unclean,  or  infected, 
to  be  taken  into  custody  by  factory  inspector  and  not  re- 
turned to  owner  until  disinfected  at  owner's  expense. 

9.  A  room  or  apartment  in  tenement  or  dwelling  house 
not  used  for  living  purposes,  and  not  connected  with  any 
room  so  used,  and  having  separate  and  distinct  entrance 
from  the  outside,  to  be  regarded  as  a  factory  or  workshop, 
and  not  subject  to  provisions  of  foregoing  sections. 

10.  Additional  force  of  deputy  factory  inspectors. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
Present  Factory  Law  (Continued). 

Bake  Shops. 

Section  17.  All  persons,  firms  and  corporations  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  or  baking  of  bread,  cakes,  crackers,  pas- 
try, pretzels  or  macaroni,  for  public  sale,  shall  keep  their  room 
or  rooms  for  baking,  mixing,  storing,  or  sale  of  flour  or  other 
grain  products,  separate  and  apart  from  any  sleeping-room, 
water-closet,  urinal,  defective  drain  or  sewer  pipe,  and  shall 
not  permit  the  harboring  of  any  domestic  animal  therein. 
The  floors  of  all  baking,  mixing,  storing  and  salesrooms  shall 
be  kept  clean  and  tightly  joined  and  free  from  crevices,  and 
the  walls  and  ceilings  shall  be  painted,  kalsomined  or  white- 
washed as  often  as  twice  in  each  year,  and  oftener  if,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  or  his  deputy,  the 
safety  of  the  employees  or  the  public  shall  require. 

Section  18.  When  the  foregoing  provisions  of  section 
seventeen  are  complied  with,  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  or 
his  deputy  shall  issue  to  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  of  such 
bakeshop  a  permit,  stating  that  the  same  is  in  a  clean  and 
sanitary  condition ;  which  permit  shall  be  posted  and  kept 
posted  in  the  office  or  salesroom  of  the  bakeshop  aforesaid ; 
but  when  any  of  the  foregoing  provisions  of  section  seventeen 
are  not  being  complied  with  in  any  bakeshop,  the  Chief  Fac- 
tory Inspector  or  his  deputy  shall  issue  to  the  person  in  charge, 
or  his  representatives,  a  written  order  to  comply  with  the  law 
aforesaid,  within  ten  days ;  or  he  may  order  the  closing  of 
any  such  bakeshop  until  the  order  shall  have  been  complied 
with,  should  the  safety  of  the  employes  or  the  public,  in  his 
opinion,  so  require. 

These  sections  comprise  the  old  bake  shop  act,  in  brief 
compass.  In  point  of  importance  this  ranks  as  a  close  second 
to  the  workshop  law.  Thanks  to  a  fairly  rigid  enforcement, 
the  old  basement  shop — dark,  foul,  disease  laden — is  a  thing 
of  the  past :  so  changed  for  the  better  as  to  be  unrecog- 

(122) 


Present  Factory  Law.  123 

nizable.  Section  7  of  the  old  bake  shop  law  (1901),  for- 
bidding the  employment  of  any  person  suffering  from  con- 
sumption, scrofula  or  venereal  diseases,  is  omitted.  But  as 
the  present  law  repeals  no  previous  acts  or  parts  of  acts  not 
inconsistent,  with  itself,  that  inhibition  is  to  be  regarded  as 
still  in  force.  How  carefully  it  is  observed  by  employers, 
or  insisted  upon  by  the  inspectors,  it  would  be  hard  to  say. 
The  conspicuous  instances  of  its  infraction  are  becoming 
fewer  from  year  to  year. 

Boilers. 

Section  19.  All  boilers  used  for  generating  steam  or  heat 
in  any  establishment  shall  be  kept  in  good  order,  and  the 
owner,  agent  or  lessee  of  such  establishment  shall  have  said 
boilers  inspected  by  a  casualty  company  in  which  said  boilers 
are  insured,  or  by  any  other  competent  person  approved  by 
the  Chief  Factory  Inspector,  once  in  twelve  months,  and  shall 
file  a  certificate  showing  the  result  thereof,  in  the  office  of  such 
establishment,  and  shall  send  a  duplicate  thereof  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Factory  Inspection.  Each  boiler  or  nest  of  boilers 
used  for  generating  steam  or  heat  in  any  establishment  shall 
be  provided  with  a  proper  safety-valve  and  with  steam  and 
water-gauges,  to  show,  respectively,  the  pressure  of  steam  and 
the  height  of  water  in  the  boilers.  Every  boiler  house,  in 
which  a  boiler  or  nest  of  boilers  is  placed,  shall  be  provided 
with  a  steam-gauge  properly  connected  with  the  boilers,  and 
another  steam-gauge  shall  be  attached  to  the  steam-pipe  in  the 
engine  house,  and  so  placed  that  the  engineer  or  fireman  can 
readily  ascertain  the  pressure  carried.  Nothing  in  this  section 
shall  apply  to  boilers  which  are  regularly  inspected  by  compe- 
tent inspectors,  acting  under  local  laws  and  ordinances. 

In  the  act  of  1901  the  deputies  were  to  satisfy  them- 
selves, by  personal  inspection,  of  the  condition  of  boilers  in 
any  establishment,  except  where  boilers  were  "regularly 
inspected  by  competent  inspectors  acting  under  local  laws 
and  ordinances" — which  meant  cities  of  the  first  and  second 
class.  Subject  to  the  same  exemption,  all  responsibility  for 
annual  boiler  inspection  is  now  placed  on  the  owner,  agent 


124  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

or  lessee,  who  must  report  to  the  Factory  Inspection  Depart- 
ment. This  change  in  the  law  is  being  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  responsible  parties  by  the  inspectors,  often 
accompanied  by  inquiries  and  explanations.  It  is  too  early 
to  determine  whether  the  change  is  a  wise  one  from  the 
standpoint  of  safety  to  the  employees. 

Reporting  of  Accidents. 

Section  20.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  owner  or  superin- 
tendent of  any  establishment  to  report,  in  writing,  to  the  Chief 
Factory  Inspector  every  serious  accident  or  serious  injury  done 
to  any  person  in  his  or  her  employ,  where  such  accident  or 
serious  injury  occurred  in  or  about  the  premises  where  em- 
ployed, within  twenty-four  hours  after  the  accident  or  injury 
occurs,  stating  as  fully  as  possible  the  cause  of  such  accident 
or  injury;  and  in  all  fatal  and  serious  accidents  the  Chief  Fac- 
tory Inspector  or  his  deputy  may  subpcena  witnesses,  admin- 
ister oaths,  and  do  whatever  may  be  necessary  in  order  to 
make  a  thorough  and  complete  investigation  of  the  same: 
Provided,  however,  That  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
not  be  construed  as  interfering  with  the  duties  of  coroners, 
under  existing  laws. 

The  department  is  now  instructing  manufacturers  and 
others  amenable  to  the  factory  law  not  to  report  minor  acci- 
dents, such  as  bruises,  cuts  or  burns  not  of  a  serious  nature. 
This  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  interpretation  of  section  20, 
provided  at  the  same  time  the  department  is  severe  with 
those  employers  who  venture  to  construe  this  order  more 
loosely  than  is  intended,  and  so  fail  to  report  any  accidents 
at  all  except  those  which  are  fatal  or  which  are  widely  adver- 
tised by  the  newspapers ;  and  provided,  also,  that  employers 
are  not  thereby  encouraged  to  a  gross  carelessness  in  the 
matter  of  safeguarding  their  machinery,  such  as  now  pre- 
vails in  the  larger  cities  of  the  state.  Where  life  and  limb 
are  at  stake,  no  letting  down  of  the  bars  could  be  consid- 
ered for  an  instant.     That  influential  manufacturers  have 


Present  Factory  Law.  125 

played  fast  and  loose  with  the  department — and  hence  with 
the  public — in  the  reporting  of  serious  preventable  acci- 
dents, is  generally  believed  by  those  who  have  had  occasion 
to  get  at  the  facts. 

Right  of  Inspection. 

Section  21.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  owner,  superin- 
tendent, assistant  or  person  in  charge  of  any  establishment  to 
furnish,  from  time  to  time,  to  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  or 
his  deputy  any  information  required  by  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  and  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  and  his  deputies  shall 
have  authority  to  inspect  any  such  establishment,  at  any  time, 
for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

In  the  face  of  this  permission  accorded  a  deputy  to  visit 
an  establishment  officially  at  any  time,  it  is  curious  that  some 
manufacturers  should  deny  this  right  and  attempt  to  bar 
out  the  inspector  when  his  call  is  inopportune  or  is  not  made 
by  way  of  the  office.  Yet  such  is  the  experience  of  probably 
every  inspector  who  really  inspects.  Interesting  stories 
might  be  told  illustrative  of  the  virtuous  indignation  excited 
in  the  breasts  of  law-defying  manufacturers,  some  of  whom 
are  posing  as  philanthropists  or  leaders  in  political  reform. 
But  the  points  to  be  emphasized  are :  First,  that  without 
this  plenary  visitorial  power  a  deputy  would  be  helpless ; 
and  second,  that  certain  of  the  deputies,  both  men  and 
women,  fail  to  take  advantage  of  this  right,  and  hence  get 
but  meager  results.  The  factory  inspector  is  a  police  officer, 
with  vitally  important  duties  to  perform.  He  is  clothed 
with  ample  powers,  and  if  he  fails  the  blame  is  his. 

It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  manufacturers  and  other 
employers  usually  exhibit  a  wholesome  respect  for  the  law, 
and  the  inspector  find  little  trouble  in  securing  prompt  com- 
pliance with  his  orders  and  suggestions.  In  fact,  many 
employers  are  glad  to  have  a  high  standard  enforced,  pro- 
vided they  can  be  sure  that  the  enforcement  is  general  and 
uniform. 


126  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Fire-Escapes. 

Section  22.  That  wherever  the  law  makes  it  the  (hity  of 
the  owner,  lessee,  or  other  person  in  charge  of  any  building, 
or  room  or  rooms  in  any  building,  to  erect  and  maintain  fire- 
escapes,  or  appliances  for  the  extinguishment  of  fire,  or  for 
proper  and  sufficient  exits  in  case  of  fire  or  panic,  the  Chief 
Factory  Inspector  or  his  deputy  shall  inspect  all  said  buildings, 
or  the  room  or  rooms  in  said  buildings,  and  notify  the  owners, 
lessees,  or  other  persons  in  charge  of  same,  to  comply  with  said 
law.  And  all  fire-escapes,  exits  and  fire  extinguishing  appli- 
ances shall  be  provided  and  located  by  order  of  the  Chief 
Factory  Inspector  or  his  deputy,  and  shall  be  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  or  his  deputy :  Pro- 
vided, That  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  not  apply  to 
cities  of  the  first  and  second  classes. 

This  fire-escape  section  must  be  taken  in  connection 
with  previous  enactments.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  factory 
inspectors  in  the  matter  of  fire-escapes  is  determined  by 
section  13  of  the  law  of  1901,  and  includes  all  "hotels, 
school  buildings,  seminaries,  colleges,  academies,  manufac- 
turing establishments,  mercantile  industries,  laundries,  reno- 
vating W'Orks,  printing  offices,  hospitals,  storehouses,  public 
halls,  and  places  of  amusement  and  workshops,  all  of  which 
are  required  by  law  to  provide  and  maintain  fire-escapes  and 
appliances  for  the  extinguishment  of  fire."  And  the  section 
provides,  further,  that  the  fire-escapes  "shall  be  erected  and 
located  by  order  of  the  factor}^  inspector  or  his  deputy, 
regardless  of  the  exemption  granted  by  any  board  of  county 
commissioners,  fire  marshals  or  other  authorities."  By  the 
proviso  in  section  22  of  the  new  law^  cities  of  the  first  and 
second  class  are,  of  course,  exempted  from  the  above. 

The  character  of  the  fire-escapes  to  be  erected  is  laid 
down  in  the  amendatory  acts  of  1885,  as  modified  by  the 
additional  amendatory  act  of  T897.  Two  sorts  of  escapes 
are  provided  for :  First,  an  "outside,  open,  iron  stairway 
of  not  more  than  forty-five  degrees  slant,  with  steps  not  less 
than  six  inches  in  wndth  and  twenty-four  inches  in  length ;" 


Present  Factory  Law.  127 

the  number  of  these  stairways  to  be  roughly  proportioned  to 
the  number  of  inmates  of  the  building.  And,  second,  an 
additional  method  of  escape,  mainly  for  the  use  of  hotels 
and  lodging  houses,  by  means  of  the  familiar  chain  and  rope 
apparatus,  placed  at  as  many  windows  as  seems  necessary 
for  safety. 

As  to  the  desirability  of  the  outside  fire-escapes.  Inspec- 
tor Campbell  wrote  in  1901  -}  "Experience  has  demonstrated 
beyond  a  doubt  that  for  buildings  four  or  more  stories  high, 
the  outside,  open,  iron  fire-escape  is  not  always  a  safe  means 
of  escape  in  case  of  fire.  The  late  disastrous  fire  in  Market 
Street,  Philadelphia,  .  .  .  proved  that  this  means  of 
escape  in  case  of  such  a  fire  was  of  no  account,  from  the  fact 
that  a  number  of  people  were  burned  to  death  in  attempting 
to  descend  the  escapes.  The  General  Assembly  should  enact 
a  law  providing  for  better  means  of  egress  in  case  of  fire 
for  high  buildings.  The  tower  escape,  recommended  to  the 
Legislature  in  1897  ...  is  the  safest  and  most  com- 
plete means  of  egress  yet  presented  to  the  public,"  In 
traveling  about  the  state  one  often  runs  across  the  apparently 
ideal  fire-escape,  especially  in  new  factory  buildings.  It 
consists  of  a  spiral  iron  stairway,  enclosed  within  a  wall  of 
solid  masonry,  which  extends  from  the  ground  to  the  top 
floor  of  the  building,  the  enclosure  pierced  only  by  iron 
doors  on  each  floor.  But  it  is  to  the  discredited  outside  fire- 
escape,  and  the  still  less  reliable  chain  and  rope,  that  the 
Legislature  pins  its  faith ;  and  hence  it  is  these,  the  erection 
of  which  is  enforced  by  the  Factory  Inspection  Department, 
together  with  the  use  of  patent  fire  extinguishers.  No  part 
of  the  factory  law  is  looked  after  more  conscientiously  by 
the  inspectors.  And  now  that  the  responsibility  for  neglect 
is  so  definitely  placed  by  statute  on  the  owner,  in  fee  or  for 
life,  the  enforcement  is  comparatively  easy. 

The  deputies  have  been  repeatedly  approached  by  enter- 
prising agents,  and  occasionally  by   the  manufacturers  of 

'Annual  Report  of  the  Factory  Inspector,  1901,  pp.  8  and  9. 


128  Factory  Legislation  in  Pcnnsylvaniu. 

fire-escapes  themselves,  with  the  request  that  they  recom- 
mend the  use  of  a  certain  type  of  fire  apparatus,  these  solici- 
tations sometimes  taking  the  form  of  covert  attempts  at 
bribery.  The  writer  has  been  assured  that  the  deputies 
might  very  considerably  augment  their  modest  salaries  by 
yielding  to  these  importunities,  and  the  public  would  be 
none  the  wiser.  Nor  could  such  a  form  of  graft  well  be 
prevented  by  legislation.  It  is  probable  that  most  of  the 
inspectors  are  above  the  reach  of  this  temptation. 

That  cities  of  the  first  and  second  classes  are  exempt 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Department  of  Factory  Inspec- 
tion in  the  matter  of  fire-escapes  is  even  more  to  be  deplored 
than  the  like  exemption  (already  noted)  for  elevators.  It  is 
beside  the  point,  in  either  case,  to  claim  that  this  is  necessary 
in  order  to  avoid  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  common- 
wealth and  municipal  authorities.  The  two,  when  occupying 
the  same  field,  are  not  co-equal,  neither  are  they  mutually 
exclusive.  The  former  is  the  superior ;  the  latter,  the  inferior. 
When  advisable,  the  latter  may  be  given  authority  to  execute 
the  law,  in  first  instance ;  but  the  former  should  never  abdi- 
cate its  function  of  administrative  supervision  and  control. 
The  police  power  of  the  state  is  to  be  delegated  to  the  lesser 
political  units  only  with  careful  reservations.  And  these 
units — counties,  townships,  cities — are  not  defrauded  when 
held  to  a  strict  accountability. 

Penalty. 

Section  23.  Any  person  who  violates  any  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  foregoing  sections  of  this  act,  or  who  suffers 
any  female,  minor  or  a  child  to  be  employed  in  or  about  his 
or  her  establishment,  in  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of 
the  foregoing  sections  of  this  act,  or  who,  being  authorized  to 
administer  oaths,  shall  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  sections 
five  and  six  of  this  act,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  on  conviction,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not 
less  than  twenty-five  dollars  and  not  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars,  or  an  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  a  term  not 
less  than  ten  days  nor  more  than  sixty  days,  for  each  and  every 


Present  Factory  Law.  129 

such  violation.  In  all  cases  the  prosecution  shall  be  instituted, 
in  the  name  of  the  Commonwealth,  by  the  deputy  factory 
inspector  of  the  district  where  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have 
been  committeed,  and  the  hearing  shall  be  conducted  by  the 
alderman,  justice  of  the  peace  or  other  committing  magistrate 
before  whom  the  information  is  lodged.  After  full  hearing 
of  the  parties  in  interest,  the  alderman,  justice  of  the  peace 
or  other  committing  magistrate  shall,  if  the  evidence  warrants 
it,  impose  the  penalty  herein  provided,  which  shall  be  final  to 
the  party  against  w^hom  the  penalty  is  imposed,  unless  the 
party  upon  whom  the  penalty  is  imposed  shall  furnish  good 
and  sufficient  bail  for  his  or  her  appearance  at  the  next  term 
of  the  court  of  quarter  sessions  of  the  county  wherein  the 
offense  is  alleged  to  have  been  committed. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  duty  of  prosecuting 
offenders  against  the  factory  law  is  laid  solely  upon  the 
deputy  inspector  of  the  district  wherein  the  offense  was 
committed,  thus  excluding  a  private  citizen  from  taking  the 
initiative.  Under  the  present  regime  no  action  is  ordinarily 
brought  by  a  deputy  until  approved  by  the  chief  inspector. 
Such  permission  is  usually  granted  as  a  matter  of  course; 
but  more  than  once,  of  late,  zealous  deputies  have  learned  to 
their  chagrin  that  they  were  "going  it  alone,"  and  that 
nothing  was  left  for  them  but  ignominious  retreat.  The* 
justices  of  the  peace  or  magistrates  before  w-hom  the  offend- 
ers are  brought  have  not  hesitated  to  impose  reasonably 
heavy  fines,  though  not  imprisonment. 

Disposal  of  Fines. 

Section  24.  All  fines  imposed  and  collected  for  any  vio- 
lation of  this  act  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  the 
Department  of  Factory  Inspection,  who  shall  pay  the  same 
into  the  ofiice  of  the  State  Treasurer,  for  the  use  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. 

The  import  of  this  section  is  that  the  office  of  chief 
inspector  is  wholly  a  salaried  one,  \vithout  additional  per- 
quisites. 


130  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

Administrative  Duties  of  Chief  Inspector. 

Section  25.  The  Chief  Factory  Inspector  shall  prepare 
the  form  of  the  employment  certificate  for  children,  and  the 
permits,  blanks,  orders  and  notices  required  by  this  act ;  the 
same  to  be  printed  in  accordance  with  the  laws  regulating  print- 
ing and  publishing,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Superintendent 
of  Public  Printing  and  Binding.  He  shall  also  divide  the  State 
into  inspection  districts,  and  assign  one  of  the  deputy  factory 
inspectors  to  each  district,  and  may  transfer  any  of  the  said 
inspectors  from  one  district  to  another,  and  make  such  rules 
and  regulations  governing  their  employment  as  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  service  shall  require.  And  he,  the  deputy  factory 
inspector,  and  those  employed  in  the  office  of  the  Chief  Fac- 
tory Inspector,  shall  have  the  same  power  to  administer  oaths 
or  affirmations  as  is  now  given  to  notaries  public,  in  all  cases 
where  any  person  desires  to  verify  documents  necessary  and 
incident  to  the  issuing  of  employment  certificates  for  children. 

In  accordance  with  the  power  given  to  divide  the  state 
into  inspection  districts.  Captain  Delaney  organized  an 
eastern  district,  with  headquarters  at  Philadelphia,  and  a 
western  district,  with  headquarters  at  Pittsburg.  Such  a 
geographical  division  was  a  most  natural  and  proper  one, 
allowing  the  chief  himself  to  keep  in  touch  with  both  dis- 
tricts from  his  central  location  at  Harrisburg.  But  in  the 
appointment  of  district  supervisors  Mr.  Delaney  made  two 
serious  blunders.  The  first  was  that,  instead  of  promoting 
two  of  his  most  efficient  deputies  to  these  responsible  posi- 
tions, he  selected  his  own  sons,  neither  of  whom  possessed 
the  necessary  qualifications  or  experience  for  so  important 
an  assignment. 

The  second  blunder,  as  the  writer  interprets  the  factory 
law.  was  in  failing  to  redistrict  the  state  so  that  the  remain- 
ing thirty-seven  deputies  (of  the  thirty-nine  provided  for  in 
section  27)  should  cover  the  entire  field.  Instead,  the  new 
appointees  were  additional  deputies.  Mr.  Delaney  claims 
that  his  authority  for  this  proceeding  is  found  in  an  enact- 


Present  Factory  Law.  131 

ment  of  April  15,  1903,^  providing  for  the  inspection  of  all 
passenger  vessels  "navigating  the  lakes  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  commonwealth,"  except  those  which  are  subject 
to  inspection  by  Federal  laws.  This  work,  curiously  enough, 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Factory  Inspection  Depart- 
ment, and  two  deputies  were  provided  "for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act."  The  duties  of  these 
two  special  inspectors,  as  laid  down  in  this  statute,  are  of  so 
technical  a  character — including  the  setting  of  all  manner 
of  tests  known  only  to  engineers — as  to  indicate  plainly  that 
only  technically  trained  men  were  expected  to  receive  the 
appointment.  In  fact,  section  20  of  the  act  definitely  states 
that  these  inspectors  "shall  have  a  practical  knowledge  of 
marine  engines,  boilers  and  machinery."  Apparently,  the 
Messrs.  Delaney  were  these  special  deputies!  Certain  it  is 
that  no  men  with  the  technical  knowledge  specified  in  the 
act  have  been  included  among  the  force,  though  the  inspec- 
tions called  for  are  being  made  in  a  perfunctory  way  by 
certain  of  the  deputies.^ 

And  even  if  we  allow  the  Captain  a  total  of  forty-one 
deputies,  what  about  Special  Deputy  Hugh  O'Donnell,  of 
Pittsburg,  or  Special  Deputy  Tobias  Hall,  of  Philadelphia, 
both  of  whom  were  badly  enough  needed  to  add  their  moral 
courage  and  aggressiveness  to  the  force?  At  times  there 
have  been  forty-two,  or  possibly  forty-three,  field  inspectors 
on  the  payroll  simultaneously.  It  is  only  just  to  the  depart- 
ment to  add  that  two  assistant  inspectors  should  be  provided 
by  law.  to  be  chosen  from  among  the  body  of  deputies  on  a 
WTll-defined  merit  system. 

There  are  now  thirty-nine  deputies^  scattered  over  the 
state  (thirteen  in  Philadelphia  alone),  one  for  each  inspec- 

'P.  L.  No.  147,  pp.  201-7. 

'The  steamboat  inspection  act  has  not  been  inckided  among  the 
regular  factory  acts,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  an  anomaly,  at  best,  in 
this  field,  and  has  not  been  regarded  seriously  thus  far  by  the  depart- 
ment itself. 

'Besides  the  additional  deputies  above  mentioned. 


132  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

tion  district.  The  only  crossing  of  districts  is  caused  by  the 
attempt  to  reHeve  some  of  the  women  inspectors  from  the 
unpleasant  duty  of  visiting  iron,  steel  and  cement  works. 
This  plan  has  not  been  successful  in  practice,  though  correct 
and  thoughtful  in  theory.  The  man  who  is  supposed  to 
cross  over  into  the  woman's  territory  usually  does  nothing 
of  the  sort,  and  after  waiting  a  reasonable  time  for  the 
expected  assistance  the  latter  takes  up  the  burden  herself. 
If  factory  legislation  is  to  follow  the  mechanical  trend  out- 
lined in  the  next  chapter,  women  inspectors  will  be  at  a 
greater  and  greater  disadvantage,  except  for  retail  stores 
and  tenement  house  manufacture — so  long  as  the  latter  shall 
be  allowed  to  exist,  for  both  of  which  they  have  peculiar 
qualifications. 

A  crying  abuse  in  the  department  is  that  of  allowing  the 
deputies  to  carry  on  outside  occupations.  One  Philadelphia 
deputy  runs  two  amusement  places  in  that  city  and  a  third 
one  in  New  York ;  and  his  office  hours  at  the  two  Philadel- 
phia places,  if  regularly  kept,  would  absorb  practically  all 
of  the  working  day.^  The  fact  that  this  particular  deputy 
has  energy  enough  to  be  one  of  the  most  efficient  inspectors 
in  the  city  only  shows  how  low  the  standard  really  is  and 
how  effective  he  could  be  if  compelled  to  drop  his  conflicting 
interests.  The  practice  is  a  bad  one,  at  best,  and  should  be 
stopped ;  and  this  would  be  no  hardship  if  better  salaries 
were  paid. 

Annual  Report. 

Section  26.  After  the  first  day  of  January,  in  each  year, 
the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  shall  compile  or  cause  to  be  com- 
piled a  succinct  statistical  and  narrative  report,  to  be  addressed 
to  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth,  of  the  work  of  his 
department  for  the  year  ending  December  thirty-first. 

This  "statistical  and  narrative  report"  furnishes  con- 
siderable interesting  material,  especially  in  the  annual  letters 

"See  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  October  19,  1905. 


Present  Factory  Lazv.  133 

of  the  chief  and  his  deputies,  which  have  often  pointed  the 
way  for  future  legislation.  But  for  purposes  of  compara- 
tive study,  year  by  year,  the  statistics  given  are  not  of  much 
value,  owing  to  the  continual  changes  both  in  the  scope  of 
the  law  and  in  the  administrative  methods  of  the  various 
chief  inspectors.  The  present  incumbent  has  so  altered  the 
form  of  the  report  that,  although  it  gives  some  important 
facts  which  his  predecessors  did  not  give,  comparison  with 
former  reports  is  rendered  impossible  except  for  a  few  items. 
Any  one  who  has  waited  until  near  the  close  of  the  fol- 
lowing year  for  a  copy  of  the  report  for  any  given  year,  will 
echo  the  sentiment  that  the  chief  inspector  or  the  state  printer 
or  the  somebody  else  who  is  responsible  for  the  annual  hold- 
up should  be  investigated  forthwith.  Ancient  history  has 
its  place,  but  not  in  the  ordinary  state  report. 

Appointment  and  Salaries. 

Section  27.  To  more  effectually  secure  the  observance  of 
the  provisions  of  this  act  and  the  fire-escape  laws,  the  Gov- 
ernor shall  appoint,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  a  Chief  Factory  Inspector,  for  a  term  of  four  years, 
at  a  salary  of  five  thousand  dollars  per  annum ;  and  who  shall 
appoint  a  chief  clerk,  at  a  salary  of  two  thousand  dollars  per 
annum ;  a  statistician,  at  a  salary  of  eighteen  hundred  dollars 
per  annum ;  an  assistant  clerk,  at  a  salary  of  fourteen  hundred 
dollars  per  annum ;  a  messenger,  who  shall  be  a  typewriter,  at 
a  salary  of  twelve  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  and  thirty- 
nine  deputy  factory  inspectors,  five  of  whom  shall  be  women, 
at  a  salary  of  twelve  hundred  dollars  each,  per  annum,  and 
their  necessary  traveling  expenses ;  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector 
and  his  appointees,  aforesaid,  to  constitute  the  Department 
of  Factory  Inspection. 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  salaries,  a  glaring 
discrepancy  is  found  between  the  five  thousand  dollars 
paid  to  the  chief  factory  inspector  and  the  twelve  hundred 
dollars  paid  to  the  field  deputies.  The  larger  sum  is  twice 
as  great  as  that  given  the  corresponding  official  in  any  other 


134  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

state  in  the  Union — unless  we  except  New  York,  where  the 
commissioner  of  labor,  whose  duties  are  more  comprehensive 
than  those  of  a  factory  inspector,  receives  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars.  In  Illinois,  where  the  chief  receives  two  thou- 
sand dollars,  the  deputies  receive  half  that  sum ;  while  in 
Massachusetts  the  deputies  are  paid  fifteen  hundred  dollars 
and  all  traveling  expenses.  The  salary  of  the  chief  inspector 
should  be  reduced  to  three  thousand  dollars,  from  which  it 
was  raised  by  the  last  factory  act,  or  possibly  to  thirty-five 
hundred  dollars,  while  that  of  the  field  deputy  should  be 
raised  to  not  less  than  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  At  the  same 
time  the  department  should  be  placed  under  civil  service 
protection,  with  the  possibility  of  promotion  for  merit.  This 
latter  result  could  be  attained,  first,  by  a  graduated  salary 
which  should  steadily  rise  from  twelve  hundred  dollars  to 
fifteen  hundred  or  even  eighteen  hundred  dollars ;  and,  sec- 
ond, by  confining  the  appointment  of  chief  clerk,  assistant 
inspectors  and  even  chief  inspector  to  those  who  had  seen 
hard  service  for  a  number  of  years  out  in  the  field,  and  had 
fairly  won  the  distinction.  Too  long,  in  the  vernacular  of 
practical  politics,  has  this  department  been  regarded  as  a 
"plum  tree"  to  be  "shaken"  for  the  benefit  of  the  "faithful." 
The  marvel  is  that  anything  has  been  accomplished,  and  that 
the  force  now  contains,  and  has  contained  from  the  start, 
men  and  women  who  deserve  a  promotion  they  cannot  hope 
to  receive. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Child  Labor  Code.  » 

We  come  now,  in  this  and  the  following  chapter,  to  a 
discussion  of  that  portion  of  the  factory  law  which  relates 
to  child  labor. 

Minimum  Age  of  Child  Labor. 

Section  2.  No  child  under  fourteen  years  of  age  shall 
be  employed  in  any  establishment. 

Pennsylvania  has  at  last  joined  a  goodly  company  of 
commonwealths^  which  have  not  feared  to  raise  the  mini- 
mum working  age  to  fourteen.  As  already  seen,  the  restric- 
tion applies  to  all  occupations  except  domestic  service,  farm 
labor,  and  the  selling  of  newspapers  outside  of  school  hours. ^ 
If  enforced,  this  ensures  an  elementary  education  for  every 
boy  and  girl.  For  the  bright  student  it  means  the  completion 
of  the  grammar  school ;  for  the  plodder,  the  end  of  the  fifth 
or  sixth  year  above  the  kindergarten.  It  would  be  of  great 
interest,  if  statistics  were  available  to  aid  us  in  forming  an 
estimate,  to  know  for  how  many  children  the  invaluable 
schooldays  were  at  once  prolonged  one  year  by  this  far- 
sighted  enactment. 

In  the  practical  interpretation  of  this  new  minimum  age 
limit  Captain  Delaney  wisely  determined  not  to  interfere 
with  those  child  workers  who  had  secured  an  employment 
certificate  under  the  old  law,  provided  no  proof  were  forth- 

^See  the  National  Consumers'  League  Handbook  for  1906.  p.  5. 

'Newsboys  should  be  regulated  by  police  ordinance  in  the  cities  of 
the  state,  as  they  are  in  New  York  City,  where  each  boy  secures  his 
permit  from  the  Department  of  Education  and  must  wear  his  badge 
while  selling  papers. 

(135) 


136  Factory  Legislation  in  Pciiiisyhania. 

coming  that  the  old  certificate  had  been  obtained  through 
perjury  for  a  child  then  under  thirteen.  At  the  end  of  one 
year  from  the  passage  of  the  act — i.  e.,  after  May  2,  1906 — 
this  exemption  would  expire,  all  working  children  having 
presumably  reached  the  age  of  fourteen  years.  When  we 
come  to  sections  5  and  6  we  shall  discover  how  this  section 
is  enforced. 

Public  Education  Association  Scholarships. 

In  Chapter  VII  an  account  is  given  of  the  promise  made 
to  the  Legislature  of  1905  by  the  Public  Education  Associa- 
tion of  Philadelphia,  to  furnish  "scholarships"  to  those 
Philadelphia  families  which,  after  careful  investigation,  were 
found  to  be  in  actual  need  of  the  two  or  three  dollars  a 
week  earned  by  a  thirteen-year-old  member  of  the  family, 
which  income  would  be  cut  off  if  the  minimum  working  age 
were  raised  to  fourteen  years.  This  promise,  made  to  fur- 
ther the  passage  of  the  factory  bill,  has  been  scrupulously 
kept  by  the  association.  And  a  brief  discussion  of  the  results 
of  this  "scholarship"  plan,  whose  effect  was  to  make  possible 
the  immediate  enforcement  of  the  new  statute  in  every  case, 
throughout  the  city,  will  throw  light  on  the  working  of  this 
section. 

To  begin  with,  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  amount 
of  the  scholarship  has  varied  with  the  earning  capacity  of 
the  child,  i.  e.,  from  two  to  three  dollars  a  week ;  that  these 
scholarships  have  been  awarded  only  where  the  father  was 
dead  or  disabled ;  and,  finally,  that  they  have  been  given 
only  as  the  last  step  in  a  general  plan  which  promised  a 
decent  maintenance  for  the  family,  and  its  eventful  self- 
support.  A  few  statistics,^  covering  the  first  year  the  scholar- 
ship plan  has  been  in  operation,  will  show  how  carefully 
these  wise  conditions  have  been  observed : 

*KindIy  furnished  by  the  Secretary,  Miss  Dora  Keen.  For  addi- 
tional information  see  Twenty-fifth  Annual  Report  Public  Education 
Association  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  48-51. 


Child  Labor  Code.  137 

Number  of  applications,  132;  awards,  27;  amounts,  $2, 
$2.50  or  $3  per  week;  duration,  19  for  periods  of  less  than 
one  year,  9  (out  of  the  19)  for  less  than  six  months;  nation- 
alities, varied :  Irish,  American,  Jewish,  German,  Italian, 
Polish,  Austrian,  about  in  the  order  named,  together  with  a 
sprinkling  of  English,  French,  Russian  and  Bohemian ; 
school  grades  of  the  twenty-seven  to  whom  scholarships 
were  granted,  one  of  the  second  grade,  eight  each  of  the 
third  and  fourth  grades,  four  of  the  fifth  grade,  three  of  the 
sixth  grade,  one  of  the  seventh  grade,  and  one  in  the  high 
school ;  sources  of  applications,  about  two-thirds  from  the 
Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education  and  the  rest  from  school 
principals,  factory  inspectors,  charitable  societies  and  private 
individuals ;  violations  of  child  labor  law,  frequent  and  would 
have  been  more  common  except  for  refusal  of  employers  to 
hire  children  unprovided  with  work  certificates. 

From  a  list  of  typical  reasons  for  awarding  or  refusing 
scholarships,  submitted  by  the  secretary,  it  appears  that  an 
award  was  made  only  where  the  total  family  income — in- 
cluding the  earnings  of  the  mother  or  older  children,  and  the 
assistance  of  relatives  and  the  church  interested — was  inade- 
quate to  maintain  the  family,  and  where  the  home  conditions 
were  such  as  to  call  for  every  effort  possible  to  keep  the 
family  together ;  and  that  the  award  was  refused  where  the 
family  earnings  were  sufficient  to  maintain  the  family 
decently,  or  where  relatives  or  the  church  stood  ready  to 
make  good  the  deficiency  or  there  was  an  insurance  balance 
large  enough  to  tide  over  the  crisis,  or  where  the  mother's 
incompetence  justified  the  breaking  up  of  the  family  group, 
or  simply  because  the  truth  could  not  be  ascertained  on 
account  of  objections  being  interposed  to  any  investigation 
whatever.  Unless  co-operation  could  be  obtained,  the 
matter  was  dropped. 

It  will  be  observed  that  awards  were  made  in  only  one 
case  out  of  every  five  (twenty-seven  out  of  one  hundred 
and  thirty—two).     And  the  number  of  applications  is  de- 


138  Fai'tory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

creasing" :  from  forty-five  the  first  three  months  to  twenty 
the  last  three,  or  over  fifty  per  cent.  This  leads  the  associa- 
tion to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the  scholarship  plan  is 
"a.  temporary  expedient,  not  a  permanent  necessity;"  that 
the  community  will  soon  adjust  itself  to  the  new  require- 
ment; and  that  "to  spread  abroad  expectation  of  compen- 
sation is  to  do  the  poor  an  injury  by  undermining  inde- 
pendence and  self-sufficiency." 

Vacation  Permits. 

Section  2  was  the  one  depended  on  by  its  framers  to 
keep  all  children  under  fourteen  from  securing  employment 
(domestic  service  and  farm  labor  excepted)  even  in  the 
summer  vacations.  This  prohibition  of  vacation  work  for 
boys  or  g"irls  from  twelve  to  fourteen  years  of  age  seems 
like  a  hardship  to  many  needy  families ;  and  it  is  so  regarded 
by  some  of  the  factory  inspectors  and  by  many  school  super- 
intendents and  principals,  as  well  as  by  thousands  of  parents 
throughout  the  state.  Family  need  was  the  more  common 
reason  advanced  by  the  parents  during  the  first  summer  the 
new  law  was  in  operation  (1905),  for  the  insistent  demand 
that  their  twelve-  or  thirteen-year-old  children  be  allowed  to 
work  for  wages.  But  in  a  surprising  number  of  instances 
the  parents  frankly  stated  that  it  was  to  keep  their  boys  off 
the  streets  and  out  of  bad  company  that  they  wanted  work 
permits.  Satan  is  still  expected  to  find  mischief  for  idle 
hands. 

But,  granting  the  actual  financial  distress  in  a  few 
instances,*  and  the  possibility  of  moral  injury  in  many  others, 
the  case  for  the  vacation  permit  is  not  established.  To  begin 
with,  wherever  the  experiment  has  been  tried,  it  has  been 
found  that  the  difficulty  experienced  by  attendance  officers 
in  getting  the  young  workers  back  to  school  in  the  fall  was 
almost  insurmountable.     The  employers  were  loath  to  part 

'The  scholarship  investigations  indicate  that  it  is  overestimated. 


Child  Labor  Code.  139 

with  their  services,  the  parents  were  unwilling  to  forego  the 
additional  family  income,  and  the  children  were  just  as 
unwilling  to  surrender  their  newly-found  privileges.  The 
freedom  enjoyed,  including  the  use  of  at  least  a  portion  of 
their  wages  as  spending  money,  made  the  routine  of  school 
life  seem  tame  and  irksome.  At  one  bound  the  young  person 
had  been  lifted  out  of  the  school-day  period  and  thrust  into 
that  of  the  worker  for  wages.  The  boy  was  too  suddenly  a 
man.^  New  York  State  tried  the  experiment  of  vacation 
permits,  found  out  its  mistake,  and  hastened  to  repeal  the 
law.  Even  if  such  permits  were  to  be  granted,  there  would 
need  to  be  a  lengthy  list  of  prohibited  occupations,  or  a  short 
list  of  those  allowed. 

However,  if  the  right  of  the  growing  boy  or  girl  to  a 
normal,  healthful  childhood  and  youth  is  to  be  secured,  then 
the  state  or  the  municii>ality  must  look  after  the  young  peo- 
ple during  the  long  summer  vacations,  and  must  assume  a 
large  measure  of  responsibility  for  their  welfare.  This  the 
City  of  Philadelphia  is  seeking  to  accomplish,  by  means  of 
its  seven  vacation  schools,  its  ten  school  gardens  and  its  forty 
separate  playgrounds.  Every  city  in  the  state,  large  or 
small,  must  pattern  after  this  admirable  example,  and  or- 
ganize its  educational  forces  so  as  to  carry  the  boys  and  girls 
over  the  dangerous  vacation  period,  not  only  without  harm, 
but  with  much  positive  good.  The  need  is  urgent :  the  duty 
of  educators  and  of  social  workers  and  of  city  councils  is 
perfectly  clear  in  the  matter. 

Working  Day  for  Minors  and  Females. 

Section  3.  No  minor  under  sixteen,  and  no  female,  shall 
be  employed  in  any  establishment  for  a  longer  period  than 
sixty  hours  in  any  one  week,  nor  for  a  longer  period  than 

'This  psychical  change  in  the  boy  or  girl,  by  which  the  period  of 
subjective  childhood  is  prematurely  cut  off,  appears  to  the  writer  as 
even  more  serious  than  the  physical  strain  to  which  the  immature  child 
worker  is  subjected.  And  both  alike  bring  moral  evils  in  their  train, 
from  which  it  is  hard  to  escape. 


140  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

twelve  hours  in  any  one  day.  No  minor  under  sixteen  shall 
be  employed  in  any  establishment  between  the  hours  of  nine 
post  meridian  and  six  ante  meridian :  Provided,  That  where  the 
material  in  process  of  manufacture  requires  the  application  of 
manual  labor  for  an  extended  period  after  nine  o'clock  post 
meridian,  to  prevent  waste  or  destruction  of  said  material,  male 
minors  over  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  who  have  not  been 
employed  in  or  about  such  establishment  between  the  hours 
of  six  ante  meridian  and  nine  post  meridian,  may  be  employed, 
for  not  more  than  nine  consecutive  hours  in  any  one  day,  after 
nine  post  meridian :  And  provided  further,  That  in  establish- 
ments where  night  work  is  hereby  permitted  to  prevent  waste 
or  destruction,  and  where  the  nature  of  the  employment  re- 
quires two  or  more  working  shifts  in  the  twenty-four  hours, 
males  over  fourteen  years  of  age  may  be  employed,  partly  by 
day  and  partly  by  night:  Provided,  Said  employment  does  not 
exceed  nine  consecutive  hours:  And  provided  further,  That 
retail  mercantile  establishments  shall  be  exempt  from  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section  on  Saturday  of  each  week,  and  during  a 
period  of  twenty  days  beginning  with  the  fifth  day  of  December 
and  ending  with  the  twenty- fourth  day  of  the  same  month : 
Provided,  That  during  the  said  twenty  days  preceding  the 
twenty-fourth  day  of  December,  the  working  hours  shall  not 
exceed  ten  hours  per  day,  or  sixty  hours  per  week. 

Section  3  (notable  chiefly  for  its  unfortunate  provisos) 
is  wholly  bad,  and  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  Strictly  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  and  regardless  of 
its  efTect  on  the  fifty-five-hour  movement  (mentioned  in 
Chapter  VII),  no  minor  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  no 
female  of  whatever  age,  should  be  employed  for  more  than 
ten*'  hours  in  any  one  day  or  more  than  fifty-five  hours  in 
any  one  week. 

2.  The  exemption  of  glass  works  and  foundries — for 
that  is  what  the  "to  prevent  waste  or  destruction"  proviso 
amounts  to — from  the  prohibition  of  night  w^ork  for  male 
minors  under  sixteen  is  infamous !     No  boy  under  that  age 

*No  other  state  (except  North  Carolina,  which  allows  eleven) 
which  has  reached  the  point  of  limiting  the  working  day  for  children 
allows  more  than  ten  hours  per  day. 


Child  Labor  Code.  141 

ought  to  be  working  at  night  in  any  establishment,  or  in  a 
glass  factory  even  in  the  day  time.''^  This  was  a  compromise 
which  the  friends  of  the  child  labor  bill  were  forced  to 
accept  in  order  to  secure  the  rest,  and  which  never  received 
even  grudging  approval  from  anyone  having  the  real  inter- 
ests of  the  working  children  at  heart.  Moreover,  by  first 
allowing  night  work,  under  certain  conditions,  for  boys  over 
fourteen,  and  then  providing  further  that  this  child  labor 
may  be  employed  "partly  by  day  and  partly  by  night,"  a 
rigid  enforcement  of  the  prescribed  nine-hour  day  is  ren- 
dered almost  out  of  the  question.  The  inspector  would  need 
to  be  on  duty  in  the  glass  factory  or  foundry  twenty-four 
hours  in  the  day. 

3.  The  exemption  of  retail  stores  from  the  same  pro- 
hibition, for  the  three  weeks  preceding  Christmas,  is  as  bad 
in  principle  as  the  other.  In  this  case  the  work  usually 
ceases  by  eleven  o'clock ;  it  is  perhaps  less  exhausting  for 
the  worker,  and  it  lasts  for  only  a  short  time  and  to  meet  a 
special  emergency.  But  even  so,  the  exemption  is  unneces- 
sary and  unjustifiable;  and  public  opinion  will  soon  insist 
that  employees  over  sixteen  years  of  age  be  found  for  this 
extra  night  work,  and  the  others  be  sent  home  at  the  usual 
hour. 

That  the  factory  inspector  has  made  no  systematic 
attempt  to  grapple  with  the  former  problem  is  perhaps 
excusable,  with  the  odds  so  strongly  against  him.  But  with 
the  active  and  continuous  assistance  which  the  Consumers' 
League  stands  ready  to  afford  throughout  the  state,  Mr. 
Delaney  should  undertake  to  compel  the  retail  stores  to  obey 
the  ten  hour  a  day  restriction,  which  is  binding  on  all 
stores  from  December  5  to  December  24,  whether  they  are 

'The  boys  in  the  glass  houses  work  all  day  one  week  and  all  night 
the  next.  They  cannot  go  to  day  school  or  night  school.  They  grow 
up  ignorant  and  lead  an  irregular  life." — Scott  Nearing,  Secretary 
Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,  in  Charities  and  the  Commons 
for  February  3,  1906. 


142  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

open  evenings  or  not.  At  least,  the  Captain  might  postpone 
for  a  few  days  the  annual  midwinter  recess  of  his  deputies, 
which  he  thoughtfully  gi'anted  them  last  year  for  the  fort- 
night beginning  December  20.  During  this  same  Christ- 
mas season  of  1905  the  Philadelphia  Consumers'  League 
reported  to  the  factory  inspector  twenty-eight  violations  of 
the  ten-hour  limit^ — and  the  deputies  on  vacation ! 

But  it  is  not  alone  the  glass  works,  foundries  and  retail 
stores  which  dare  to  disobey  the  prohibitions  of  this  section. 
For  example,  cotton  and  silk  mills  and  paper  box  factories, 
all  of  which  employ  large  numbers  of  children  between  four- 
teen and  sixteen,  are  sad  offenders  during  the  rush  seasons. 
In  the  silk  mills  of  the  anthracite  region,  especially  in  the 
Lackawanna  Valley,  young  boys  and  girls  are  working 
nights  on  twelve-hour  shifts.  In  justice  to  the  department, 
it  must  be  stated  that  most  of  these  children  claim  to  be 
sixteen  years  old.  In  both  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  the 
time  limit  is  constantly  disregarded.  So  general  is  this 
defiance  of  the  law  at  certain  seasons  of  the  year  as  to  justify 
the  statement  made  in  the  second  annual  report  (1905-6) 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,**  that  factories 
"do  not  hesitate  to  work  overtime  whenever  it  may  suit  the 
convenience  of  the  manager." 

Employments  Prohibited  to  Minors. 

Section  4.  No  minor  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be 
permitted  to  clean  or  oil  machinery  while  in  motion,  or  to 
operate,  or  otherwise  have  the  care  or  custody  of,  any  elevator 
or  lift. 

Both  these  restrictions  have  met  with  favor  on  the  part 
of  employers  generally,  and  have  given  the  inspector  little 
trouble  to  enforce.  A  much  larger  list  of  prohibited  occu- 
pations should  appear  in  the  next  factory  act. 

*See  the  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the   Philadelphia  Branch  of  the 
Consumers'  League  of  Pennsylvania,  pp.  8  and  9. 
•P.  8. 


Child  Labor  Code. 


Employment  Certificates. 


143 


Section  5.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  the  owner,  superin- 
tendent, lessee,  or  other  person  in  charge  of  any  establishment 
where  persons  are  employed  for  wages  or  salary,  to  employ  any 
child  between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen  years,  unless 
there  is  first  provided,  and  placed  on  file  in  the  office  of  the 
establishment  where  said  child  is  employed,  a  certificate  in 
the  form  provided  by  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector,  which 
certificate  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  State.  It  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  Factory  Inspector  or  any  of  his  office  force, 
the  deputy  factory  inspectors,  or  of  the  city  or  borough  com- 
mon school  superintendents  within  their  various  jurisdictions, 
or  of  the  principal  teacher  of  the  common  schools  in  locali- 
ties not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  any  city  or  borough  superin- 
tendent, or  of  their  respective  duly  authorized  deputies,  to  issue 
the  employment  certificate  hereinafter  prescribed.  No  princi- 
pal teacher  shall  be  authorized  to  issue  said  employment  cer- 
tificate within  any  district  over  which  a  superintendent  has 
jurisdiction.  The  district  of  such  city  or  borough  superin- 
tendent or  principal  teacher  shall  be  the  same  as  that  in  which 
the  child  seeking  an  employment  certificate  resides. 

Section  6.  The  employment  certificate  shall  state  the 
name,  age,  date,  place  of  birth,  and  description  (including 
color  of  eyes,  hair  and  complexion)  of  said  child,  its  residence, 
and  the  residence  of  its  parent,  guardian  or  custodian,  and 
the  ability  of  said  child  to  read  and  write  simple  sentences  in 
the  English  language,  that  it  has  complied  with  the  educational 
laws  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  is  physically  able  to  perform 
the  work  to  be  required  of  it. 

Provided,  That  before  any  such  certificate  of  employment 
is  issued,  the  person  authorized  to  issue  the  same  shall  first 
demand  and  obtain  of  the  parent,  guardian  or  custodian  of  said 
child  an  affidavit,  sworn  to  before  any  officer  authorized  to 
administer  oaths,  made  by  him  or  her,  stating  the  age,  date 
and  place  of  birth  of  said  child ;  and  shall  further  demand  and 
obtain  a  certificate  of  said  child's  birth,  as  kept  by  any  public 
authority,  or,  transcript  of  the  record  of  its  birth,  baptism  or 
circumcision,  as  kept  by  any  religious  denomination,  or,  in 
the  case  of  a  foreign-born  child  (if  such  evidence  of  age  be 
lacking),  a  true  copy  of  the  passenger  manifest,  passport  or 
official  record  filed  at  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Immi- 
gration at  the  port  of  arrival,  as  corroborative  evidence  of  the 


144  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

truth  of  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  affidavit ;  and  shall  note  in 
his  statement,  as  aforesaid,  the  character  of  such  record  and 
by  what  public  or  religious  authority  the  same  is  issued :  Pro- 
z'ided,  hozvever,  That  where  no  such  transcript  of  public  or 
religious  record,  or  passenger  manifest,  passport  or  official 
record,  as  aforesaid,  of  said  child's  age  is  obtainable,  the 
same  may  be  substituted  by  a  statement  signed  by  the  princi- 
pal teacher  of  the  last  school  which  said  child  attended,  certify- 
ing that  said  child  has  received  instruction  in  reading,  spelling, 
writing,  English  grammar,  and  geography,  and  is  familiar 
with  the  fundamental  operations  of  arithmetic  and  has  com- 
pleted the  course  of  study  in  the  common  schools  prescribed 
for  the  first  five  years,  or  a  course  of  study  in  other  schools 
equivalent  thereto.  At  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the  employment 
certificate,  the  person  so  issuing  the  same  shall  make  one  copy 
thereof,  which  copy  shall  be  filed,  within  ten  days  from  the 
date  of  its  issue,  in  the  office  of  the  common  school  superin- 
tendent in  the  district  in  which  the  child  holding  the  certificate 
resides ;  and  in  districts  not  having  such  a  superintendent,  the 
said  copy  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  Chief  Factory 
Inspector,  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  inspection  of  the  public. 
The  certificate  of  the  registration  of  birth,  baptism  or  circum- 
cision, or,  in  the  case  of  a  foreign-born  child,  the  copy  of 
passenger  manifest,  passport  or  official  record,  as  hereinbefore 
prescribed,  or,  in  the  absence  of  such  transcripts,  the  state- 
ment of  the  principal  teacher,  certifying  that  such  child  has 
received  instruction  as  prescribed,  as  well  as  the  affidavit  of 
the  parent,  guardian  or  custodian,  shall  be  filed  with  a  copy 
of  said  employment  certificate.  The  certificate  when  issued 
shall  be  the  property  of  the  said  child,  who  shall  be  entitled 
to  a  surrender  of  the  certificate  to  him  or  her  by  the  employer 
whenever  said  child  shall  leave  the  service  of  any  employer 
holding  the  certificate. 

These  two  enforcement  sections  w^ere  the  ones  upon 
which  the  greatest  stress  was  laid  in  the  child  labor  campaign 
described  in  Chapter  VII;  and  though  a  recent  decision  of 
the  Superior  Court,  to  be  referred  to  later,  has  declared  a 
portion  of  section  6  unconstitutional,  admirable  results  were 
obtained  while  the  law  stood,  and  progress  still  lies  in  the 
same  direction.     Results  were  sought  to  be  accomplished 


Child  Labor  Code.  145 

(i)  by  transferring  the  power  to  issue  the  employment  cer- 
tificates from  the  aldermen  and  justices  of  the  peace,  or  the 
factory  inspectors,  to  the  public  school  superintendents  and 
principal  teachers,  or  the  factory  inspectors;  (2)  by  re- 
moving the  temptation  of  a  fee  for  each  certificate  issued; 
and  (3)  by  requiring,  in  addition  to  the  former  affidavit  of 
the  parent  or  guardian,  corroborative  evidence  of  age,  or, 
in  default  thereof,  the  completion  of  five  years  of  school. 
A  further  requirement,  that  each  work  certificate  should 
contain  a  careful  description  of  the  holder,  was  expected  to 
prove  valuable  for  purposes  of  identification,  and  so  to  put 
a  stop  to  the  unscrupulous  practice  of  substituting  one  child 
for  another  when  the  certificate  was  applied  for. 

The  old  law  put  a  premium  on  perjury,  as  success  was 
almost  certain  and  the  risk  of  punishment  if  detected  prac- 
tically nothing.  Many  parents,  especially  foreigners,  may 
not  have  realized  the  character  of  an  oath  wheii  they  took 
affidavit  so  glibly ;  but  may  have  thought,  as  the  Public  Edu- 
cation Association  has  suggested,^*^  that  they  had  merely 
"bought  the  certificate  off  a  man  at  the  corner  for  a  quarter." 
In  actual  practice  that  was  all  it  amounted  to,  and  the  per- 
formance was  one  not  calculated  to  train  for  good  citizen- 
ship. 

Early  Operation  of  LotcV. 

A  somewhat  detailed  study  of  the  practical  adminis- 
tration of  this  child  labor  law  will  disclose  both  its  strength 
and  its  weakness.  Unfortunately,  the  act  went  into  effect 
immediately  (May  2),  before  the  necessary  blank  forms 
could  be  printed ;  and  the  first  ones  to  be  issued  from  Har- 
risburg  were  faulty  and  had  to  be  revised.  To  add  to  the 
confusion,  certificate  forms  were  sent  to  notaries  and  others 
who  had  no  official  use  for  them,  but  who  forthwith  began 
to  issue  employment  certificates  on  simple  affidavit  in  the 

**In  a  letter  to  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  dated  March  8,  1905. 


146  Factory  Leghlation  in  Pennsylvania. 

good  old  way.  Nor  would  they  stop  until  several  of  them 
had  been  prosecuted  by  the  department  and  fined. 

Again,  it  took  some  time  for  principal  teachers  to 
understand  that  they  must  not  attempt  to  issue  certificates 
in  districts  having  city  or  borough  superintendents,  and  for 
county  superintendents  to  perceive  that  (for  some  inscru- 
table reason)  they  were  out  of  it  altogether.  And,  finally, 
by  the  time  the  blanks  had  been  corrected  and  the  intrica- 
cies of  the  law  explained  and  the  parents  had  learned  where 
to  go  for  the  new  certificates,  the  schools  had  closed  and  the 
teachers  had  scattered  to  the  four  winds.  Even  as  late  as 
the  latter  part  of  July  the  new  system  was  hardly  in  working 
order,  but  by  the  middle  of  September  it  was  going  smoothly. 
This  was  partly  due  to  the  educational  work  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Child  Labor  Committee,  which  had  been  sending 
copies  of  the  new  law  with  explanations  to  notaries  public, 
school  superintendents  and  associations  of  manufacturers 
throughout  the  state;  and  to  work  of  a  like  sort,  by  the 
Consumers'  League,  among  the  larger  retail  stores  of  the 
commonwealth. 

In  Philadelphia  the  factory  inspectors,  who  had  begun 
the  work  of  issuing  employment  certificates,  were  ordered 
by  their  chief  to  refrain  from  issuing  the  certificates,  which 
were  hereafter  to  be  procured  only  at  the  City  Hall  from  the 
Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education.  But  after  a  few  months 
this  regulation  was  partially  relaxed,  so  that  later  some 
certificates  were  issued  by  the  deputies.  Throughout  the 
rural  sections  of  the  state,  where  the  deputies  remained  but 
a  few  hours  or  a  day  in  a  locality,  they  found  it  especially 
inconvenient  to  exercise  this  function  of  their  office,  and 
were  glad  to  turn  it  over  to  the  school  authorities,  who  are 
accessible  at  all  times. 

A  matter  over  which  there  was  contention  was  the  con- 
struction of  the  phrase  "or  of  their  respective  duly  author- 
ized deputies'"  (section  5).  This  same  section  authorized 
city  and  borough  superintendents,  or  principal  teachers,  to 


Child  Labor  Code.  147 

deputize  the  performance  of  this  duty;  but  it  also  forbade 
a  principal  teacher  'Svithin  any  district  over  which  a  super- 
intendent has  jurisdiction"  to  issue  a  certificate.  Query: 
Might  such  principal  teacher  act  as  deputy  for  a  superin- 
tendent when  he  or  she  could  not  act  in  the  capacity  of 
principal  teacher  ?  Persons  back  of  this  child  labor  law,  and 
who  helped  to  frame  it,  said  "No."  Superintendents  and 
others  interested  said  "Yes."  The  point  has  received  no 
judicial  decision.  Superintendents  deputized  their  teachers, 
attendance  officers,  probation  officers,  and  even  the  borough 
chief  of  police. 

Educational  Tests. 

In  practice,  the  provision  requiring  the  examiner  to 
test  the  child's  ability  to  "read  and  write  simple  sentences 
in  the  English  language"  was  satisfied  by  permitting  the 
child  to  stumble  along  through  a  piece  of  reading  that  a 
third  grade  pupil  should  handle  with  ease,  and  then  telling 
him  to  sign  his  name  to  the  application  blank.  ^^  Even  at 
the  Bureau  of  Compulsory  Education,  Philadelphia,  no 
harder  test  was  applied  or  thought  necessary. 

The  following  clause,  requiring  that  the  applicant 
should  have  "complied  with  the  educational  laws  of  the 
commonwealth,"  was  usually  neglected  altogether  or  else 
applied  only  to  the  preceding  year.  But  the  superintendent 
of  schools  at  Pottsville  declared  that  it  meant  far  more  than 
the  preceding  year.  He  stretched  the  time  to  the  full  extent 
prescribed  by  the  compulsory  education  law,  i.  e.,  from  the 
eighth  to  the  thirteenth  birthday ;  and  he  concluded  that  any 
normal  child  who  had  attended  school  regularly  during  that 
period  must  have  completed  the  fifth  year,  the  grade  re- 
quired of  all  children  who  could  not  bring  proof  of  age.  He 
therefore  held  all  to  that  standard,  and  issued  no  employ- 

"For  this  latter  performance  the  child  had,  if  necessary,  been  care- 
fully coached. 


148  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

ment  certificate  to  a  child  who  had  not  completed  the  fifth 
year  of  school. 

This  superintendent  defended  his  position  by  two  main 
arguments :  First,  that  the  prescription  either  meant  all  that 
it  implied  or  else  it  was  meaningless,  since  there  was  no 
logical  half-way  point  to  stop  at.  And  second,  that  only 
by  such  broad  interpretation  was  the  American  boy  or  girl 
given  the  same  protection  afforded  the  foreign-born  child, 
the  one  who  was  least  likely  to  be  able  to  produce  corrobo- 
rative evidence  of  asfe. 


*&' 


Physical  Test. 

The  physical  examination  requirement  was  practically 
a  dead-letter  throughout  the  state,  only  the  most  conspicu- 
ous weakness  or  deformity  receiving  any  attention  from  the 
examiner.  As  a  result,  some  wretchedly  frail  specimens  of 
childish  humanity  were  permitted  to  enter  the  ranks  of  the 
workers  and  assume  that  heavy  burden. 

Corroborative  Evidence  of  Age. 

There  was  a  definite,  prescribed  order  in  the  corrobo- 
rative evidence  of  age  required.  The  plainly  expressed 
preference  was  for  the  record  as  kept  by  a  public  authority, 
usually  the  board  of  health,  or  by  a  religious  denomination, 
or  by  the  commissioner  of  immigration.  And  only  in  lieu 
of  such  record  should  the  statement  of  the  principal  teacher 
as  to  the  grade  reached  by  the  child  be  accepted.  As  carried 
out  by  the  examiner,  and  sanctioned  by  the  chief  factory 
inspector,  these  were  put  on  a  par.  with  the  school  record 
playing  quite  as  important  a  part  as  the  others. 

There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  ability  of  various 
foreigners  to  produce  evidence  of  age  from  their  home  gov- 
ernment or  their  church.  Italians,  for  example,  have  an 
easy  time  of  it;  Russians  a  hard  time.  Often  when  a  for- 
eign parent  has  a  birth  record  of  his  child  it  is  an  ornate 


Child  Labor  Code.  149 

official  document  issued  by  his  native  state,  and  he  decHnes 
to  part  with  it  to  the  examiner  as  the  act  (section  6)  seems 
to  require.  Accordingly,  in  such  cases,  a  copy  was  made 
and  filed  with  the  affidavit,  and  the  original  was  returned 
to  the  owTier.  This  was  a  substantial  compliance  with  the 
law,  and  worked  no  injustice. 

Fees  for  Certificates. 

It  probably  has  been  noticed  that  no  remuneration  was 
provided,  not  even  a  small  fee,  for  issuing  these  employment 
certificates ;  and  this  w^as  naturally  objected  to  by  those  upon 
whom  the  new  burden  had  largely  fallen.  The  claim  was 
even  made  that  this  part  of  the  act  was  unconstitutional,  in 
that  no  local  official  could  be  compelled  to  perform  common- 
wealth duties  without  pay.  But  it  hardly  needed  a  decision 
by  Judge  Wheaton^^  on  a  similar  provision  in  the  anthra- 
cite^^ mine  law  of  May  2,  1905,  to  assure  us  that  this  con- 
tention was  not  well  founded.  The  public  school  is  of  more 
than  local  concern,  and  its  officers  have  a  corresponding 
status  and  cannot  escape  the  responsibilities.  And,  further, 
there  was  a  short-sighted  objection  to  the  new  law  on  the 
ground  that  it  tended  to  bring  the  school  and  its  teachers  into 
disrepute,  or  even  to  excite  active  hostility  against  them. 

Child  Labor  Law  Overthroimi. 

The  excellent  results  obtained  under  this  first  effective 
child  labor  law  known  to  Pennsylvania  were  cut  short  by 
a  new  development  arising  from  a  decision  of  the  Superior 
Court  (already  referred  to)  in  the  case  of  Collett  vs.  Scott, '^* 
confirming  the  decision  given  by  Judge  Wheaton,  of  the 
Luzerne  County  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  to  the  effect  that 

**  Luzerne   County   Court   of   Common    Pleas.      Opinion   rendered 
October  13,  1905   (not  reported). 

"There  is  a  separate  code  for  the  bituminous  mines. 

"30  Pa.  Superior  Court,  p.  430.    Opinion  rendered  March  12,  1906. 


150  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

the  employment-certificate  clauses  of  the  anthracite  mine  act 
of  May  2,  1905,^^ — similar  to  the  corresponding  clauses  of 
the  factory  act  of  same  date — were  in  violation  of  section  i 
of  the  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 

It  is  significant  for  the  future  of  child  labor  restriction 
that  Judge  Rice  should  begin  by  conceding  the  claim  that 
the  Legislature  has  power  "to  prohibit  the  employment  of 
minors  under  a  certain  age  in  or  about  anthracite  coal 
mines,"  and  that  it  also  may  "prescribe  certain  educational 
qualifications  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  right  of  minors 
who  have  reached  the  specified  age  to  be  so  employed,  with- 
out imposing  the  same  restrictions  upon  minors  before  en- 
gaging in  other  employment." 

"But,"  says  the  justice,  "there  remains  the  serious 
objection  .  .  .  that  the  legislative  provisions  under  con- 
sideration make  a  discrimination  between  minors  of  the 
same  sex  and  age,  the  same  mental  and  physical  ability,  the 
same  experience  in  this  avocation  [vocation?]  and  the  same 
educational  qualifications,  permitting  members  of  one  class 
to  obtain  employment  certificates,  without  which  no  minor 
can  be  employed  at  all,  upon  much  easier  terms  than  are 
required  of  members  of  the  other  class."  The  opinion  then 
enumerates  the  members  of  each  class,  as  described  in  the 
law  under  examination,  pointing  out  the  additional  require- 
ments [safeguards,  the  judge  might  well  have  termed  them] 
of  an  educational  character  imposed  upon  Class  II,  i.  e., 
those  who  are  unable  to  furnish  the  prescribed  corroborative 
proof  of  age.  "The  first  section  of  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment does  not  prohibit  classification  of  the  subjects  of  legis- 
lation, and  the  application  of  different  regulations  to  dif- 
ferent classes."  But,  adds  the  judge  significantly,  "Arbitrary 
selection  can  never  be  justified  by  calling  it  classification." 
And  "where  it  is  apparent  that  it  [the  legislative  classifica- 
tion] is  not  based  on  any  reasonable  ground,  or  any  differ- 
ence which  bears  a  just  and  proper  relation  to  the  subject 

"P.  L.,  344. 


Child  Labor  Code.  151 

with  reference  to  which  the  classification  is  attempted,  but 
is  a  mere  arbitrary  selection,  it  will  not  relieve  the  statute 
from  the  equality  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment." 

The  contention  of  counsel  for  the  Pennsylvania  Child 
Labor  Committee,  at  whose  instance  the  appeal  was  taken,  ^" 
that  "the  differences  in  the  requirement  for  the  certificate 
were  merely  differences  in  the  manner  of  establishing  the  age 
of  minor  children  applying  for  the  employment  certificates 
as  provided  in  the  act,"  seems  a  trifle  far-fetched.  And  the 
decision  does  not  justify  the  stricture  made  upon  it  by  Mrs. 
Florence  Kelley,  in  the  opening  sentence  of  her  article  in 
Charities  and  the  Commons  for  May  5,  1906  :^^  "The  right 
to  ignorance  has  been  judicially  vindicated."  It  would  have 
been  more  to  the  point  to  say :  "The  obligation  resting  on 
those  who  w^ould  frame  legislation,' not  to  confuse  'arbitrary 
selection'  with  'classification,'  has  been  judicially  confirmed." 
Nor  is  Mrs.  Kelley  justified  in  assuming  that  "the  age  limit 
is  not  a  workable  restriction  in  Pennsylvania,"  when  (as 
already  noted)  Judge  Rice  begins  by  conceding  the  right 
of  the  Legislature  to  impose  both  age  and  educational  quali- 
fications upon  the  labor  of  children.  But  we  heartily  concur 
in,  and  advocate  in  the  following  chapter,  a  later  sugges- 
tion of  Mrs.  Kelley's  :  "If  the  difficulty  in  Pennsylvania  lies 
in  the  partial  and  discriminatory  nature  of  the  recent  statute, 
by  all  means  let  all  the  candidates  for  employment  be  uni- 
formly required  to  reach  a  given  stature  and  to  accomplish 
a  specified  amount  of  school  work." 

The  imperative  need  for  a  new  child  labor  statute,  that 
shall  meet  all  requirements  of  law  and  humanity,  will  be 
apparent  when  we  trace  the  remaining  steps  that  followed 
logically  upon  this  decision  of  the  Superior  Court.  A  few 
weeks  later  Captain  Delaney,  in  response  to  his  application 
to  the  Attorney  General,  received  from  that  ofiicial  a  ruling 
to  the  effect  that  this  decision  implied  the  unconstitutionality 

"See  editorial  in  Charities  and  the  Commons  for  February  10,  1906. 
"P.   189,  article  entitled  "Judge-Made  Ignorance  in  Pennsylvania." 


152  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

of  the  similarly  worded  employment-certificate  sections  (5 
and  6)  of  the  factory  act.  Armed  with  this  ruling,  Mr. 
Delaney  issued^^  a  circular  letter  of  instructions  to  "Deputy 
Factory  Inspectors  (and  others  concerned)"  in  which,  after 
referring  to  the  recent  decision  of  the  Superior  Court,  he 
states  that  the  Attorney  General's  ruling  based  on  the  same 
confirms  his  own  judgment  that  the  new  child  labor  law  is 
"unconstitutional  in  two  particulars :  first,  in  its  double  edu- 
cational standard  fgr  children  of  the  same  age ;  second,  in 
its  limiting  the  employment  of  children  in  Pennsylvania  to 
those  who  have  complied  with  the  educational  laws  of  the 
commonwealth."  The  first  contention  is  in  plain  agree- 
ment wdth  Judge  Rice's  opinion;  the  second  is  just  as  plainly 
in  direct  contravention  of  it.  Useless  and  almost  mis- 
chievous, as  we  have  discovered  that  provision  to  be,  it  is 
not  unconstitutional. 

Captain  Delaney  then  goes  on  to  direct  that  his  deputy 
inspectors  and  others  who  issue  employment  certificates 
"shall  no  longer  require  an  age  affidavit  to  be  corroborated 
by  a  transcript  from  a  public  or  a  religious  record  of  birth, 
baptism  or  circumcision ;"  and  that  they  "shall  no  longer 
require  a  statement  of  any  kind  whatsoever  from  a  teacher 
as  to  a  child's  educational  qualifications."  And  then,  to  put 
the  matter  more  definitely  still,  the  letter  adds  that  hereafter 
"the  only  conditions  required  in  order  to  issue  an  employ- 
ment certificate  to  a  child  are  the  following :  a  parent's,  guar- 
dian's or  custodian's  affidavit  showing  that  the  child  is  at 
least  fourteen  years  of  age;  ability  on  the  part  of  the  child 
to  read  and  write  the  English  language,  and  physical  ability 
in  the  child  to  perform  the  proposed  labor."  In  a  word,  the 
old-time  scandalous  condition  of  affairs  which  prevailed 
before  the  new  law  went  into  effect  is  restored.  The  old 
lying  affidavit,  with  the  accompanying  farcical  test  of  the 
applicant's  ability  to  read  simple  sentences  and  write  his 

"About  June  i,  1906. 


Child  Labor  Code.  153 

own  name,  and  with  virtually  no  physical  test,  is  once  again 
in  effect. 

The  Philadelphia  Board  of  Education  refused  com- 
pliance with  these  directions  until  it  had  received  an  official 
ruling  from  the  City  Solicitor.  Its  Bureau  of  Compulsory 
Education  then  fell  into  line,  and  is  now  grinding  out  work 
certificates  by  the  hundreds.  Unscrupulous  parents  and 
guardians  are  having  their  innings,  and  scores  of  certificates 
are  being  issued  in  Philadelphia  alone  to  persons  who  would 
hardly  have  dared  to  apply  while  the  provisions  requiring 
corroborative  evidence  of  age  were  in  force.  The  writer  is 
informed  that  similar  lamentable  conditions  have  come  to 
prevail  in  the  state  at  large,  and  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  such  is  the  case. 

Mr.  Delaney  might  have  refrained  from  pushing  this 
matter  to  an  issue  by  requiring  a  ruling  from  the  Attor- 
ney General,  and  have  gone  on  enforcing  the  new  law  in  its 
entirety  until  stopped  by  legal  process.  But  this  would  have 
been  only  a  postponement  of  the  crisis,  which  must  be  met 
eventually.^'' 

"Proof  of  which  is  the  decision  handed  down  in  July  (1906)  by 
Judge  Staake,  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions,  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of 
Commonwealth  vs.  MacMillan  Hoopes.  Though  believing  "that  a  well- 
considered,  thoroughly  digested  and  carefully  drafted  child  labor  act 
is  beneficial  to  the  commonwealth,"  Judge  Staake  was  forced  to  the 
conclusion  reached  by  Judge  Rice  (whose  opinion  is  quoted  at  length) 
that  "arbitrary  selection  can  never  be  justified  by  calling  it  classifica- 
tion;" and  that  the  certificate  section  of  the  child  labor  act  was  con- 
trary to  the  equality  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution,  and  therefore  void. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Child  Labor  Code  (Continued). 

Relation  to  Compulsory  Education  Law. 

Though  the  temporary  protection  afforded  the  child 
worker  by  the  factory  act  of  1905  has  been  largely  with- 
drawn through  the  overthrow  of  the  enforcement  provisions 
of  that  act,  friends  of  the  children  are  resolved  that  Penn- 
sylvania shall  not  lose  step  with  the  national  movement 
which  is  making  for  the  children's  release  from  toil  or  their 
safeguarding  while  at  work.  Accordingly,  a  new  child  labor 
code  is  in  process  of  construction,  and  the  writer  has  reason 
to  believe  that  the  suggestions  offered  in  the  last  chapter 
and  in  this  are  not  far  astray  from  the  trend  that  new  legis- 
lation will  take. 

To  begin  with,  those  portions  of  the  child  labor  law 
which  relate  to  the  minimum  age  of  employment  and  to  the 
intermediate  period  (fourteen  to  sixteen)  during  which  the 
alternative  is  either  a  work  certificate  or  school,  are  but 
supplements  of  the  compulsory  education  law.  Accordingly, 
the  tw^o  should  be  merged,  or  brought  into  harmony  with 
each  other,  and  the  resulting  code  should  then  be  enforced 
in  its  entirety  by  the  school  authorities  throughout  the  state. ^ 
Each  school  district  should  be  obliged  to  maintain  an  effi- 
cient corps  of  attendance  officers,  proportional  to  its  school 
population.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Department  of  Factory 
Inspection  over  that  part  of  the  factory  law  whose  real 
intent  is  the  prolongation  of  school  life  should  thereupon 
cease. 

'In  Connecticut  the  enforcement  of  the  child  labor  law  is  in  the 
hands  of  agents  appointed  by  the  State  Board  of  Education,  with  addi- 
tional inspection  by  the  town  authorities. 

(154) 


Child  Labor  Code.  155 

In  an  article  in  "Charities"  for  August  26,  1905,  on 
"Child  Labor  and  the  Schools,"  based  on  her  experience  as 
a  social  worker  and  including  a  three  months'  inquiry  which 
she  had  just  completed,  Miss  Sanville^  declares :  "Each 
new  fact  disclosed  by  the  three  months'  inquiry  arrays  itself 
on  the  side  of  the  Compulsory  Education  Bureau  as  an  ade- 
quate working  machine  to  keep  children  out  of  work,  as 
well  as  in  school,  rather  than  the  factory  department.  The 
schools  are  the  natural  guardians  of  the  children,  and  con- 
cern themselves  solely  with  their  welfare ;  and  an  attendance 
officer  has,  or  should  have,  no  other  duties  than  looking 
after  the  children  in  his  district.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
factory  inspectors  have  required  of  them  many  other  duties 
than  the  enforcing  of  child  labor  legislation.  Again,  the 
school  has  always  some  information  on  hand  concerning  a 
child  to  assist  in  keeping  track  of  him,  and  by  simply  deter- 
mining whether  or  not  he  is  attending  school,  can  also  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  he  is  complying  with  the  law ;  while  a 
factory  inspector  knows  merely  that  he  discharges  a  child 
from  a  given  place,  but  has  no  means  of  ascertaining 
whether  he  immediately  proceeds  to  obtain  employment  else- 
where .  .  .  there  to  wait  another  chance  visit  from 
an  inspector.  Finally,  the  attendance  officer  has,  both  in  the 
school  record  and  in  his  contact  with  the  home  of  the  child, 
some  sort  of  a  gauge  of  the  child's  age ;  but  the  factory  in- 
spector must  judge  solely  by  his  appearance — and  on  this 
very  unsound  basis  alone  can  question  the  legality  of  his 
certificate.  .  .  .  The  upshot  of  the  whole  matter  is, 
.  that  the  chief  responsibility  for  our  working  chil- 
dren rests  with  the  schools  rather  than  with  the  factory 
department.  ...  If  the  children  are  at  school,  they  are 
not  at  work;  it  is  all  that  is  needed." 

How  slight  is  the  hold  over  the  working  boy  now  pos- 
sessed by  the  factory  inspector,  receives  ample  illustration 

'Secretary  of  the  Philadelphia  Branch  of  the  Consumers'  League  of 
Pennsylvania. 


156  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

every  week  in  the  year,  A  lad  driven  out  of  one  factory,  in 
the  annual  or  semi-annual  roundup  of  the  deputy,  soon  bobs 
up  serenely  either  in  the  same  or  another  factory,  or  in  a 
railroad  office  clothed  in  that  magical  suit  of  blue  which 
renders  him  invisible  to  the  official  eye — a  messenger  boy's 
uniform!  And,  even  if  the  youngster  is  routed  out  of  his 
new  position,  the  present  gap  between  factory  inspector  and 
attendance  officer  is  not  filled :  there  is  no  assurance  that  the 
child  no  longer  at  work  means  the  child  at  school.  The 
divided  responsibility  must  be  united,  and  assumed  by  the 
school.  With  the  school  authorities  issuing  the  work  certifi- 
cates and  attendance  officers  acting  on  them,  it  would  not 
be  long  before  parents,  children  and  employers  alike  would 
come  to  understand  that  these  certificates  simply  "declare 
that  the  child  has  complied  with  the  school  laws  and  is, 
therefore,  from  the  school  point  of  view,  legally  qualified 
to  work,"^  In  other  words,  the  educational  and  not  the 
industrial  side  of  child  life  would  receive  the  emphasis,  and 
that  is  exactly  what  should  be  insisted  upon  for  growing 
children. 

A  further  advantage  would  accrue  from  this  partial 
merging  of  the  child  labor  and  the  compulsory  education 
laws,  namely,  that  the  minimum  age  for  work  and  that  for 
conditional  exemption  from  school  attendance  would  rise 
together.  We  could  not  have  the  present  unfortunate  dis- 
crepancy between  the  two  which  allows  a  child  of  thirteen, 
provided  his  regular  employment  be  domestic  service  or 
farm  labor,  to  leave  school,  while  children  who  engage  in 
other  occupations  are  protected  by  the  state  to  the  extent  of 
an  additional  year  of  school.  Consistency  between  the  two 
laws  can  now  be  obtained  only  by  two  distinct  legislative 
processes,  often  separated  by  a  number  of  years,  to  the 
great  confusion  of  the  entire  movement.  The  logical  one- 
ness of  the  two  laws  is  perhaps  best  seen  when  they  are  tem- 

•See  "Charities"  for  June  10,  1905,  article  by  Miss  Marot  entitled 
"Progress  in  Pennsylvania." 


Child  Labor  Code.  157 

porarily  out  of  harmony  with  each  other.  Another  strong 
reason  for  taking  this  step  is  that  thereby  the  Department 
of  Factory  Inspection  itself  can  hardly  fail  to  be  greatly 
improved.  A  most  serious  drawback  under  the  present 
arrangement  is  that  the  inspector's  duties  are  not  homo- 
geneous, so  as  to  call  for  uniform  qualifications  for  all  the 
deputies.  The  best  man  for  searching  out  children  under 
age  may  be  the  poorest  for  looking  after  dangerous  ma- 
chinery and  the  like.  Rarely  is  the  same  man  suited  for 
both.  With  the  child  labor  duties  eliminated — except  as  to 
hours  of  labor  for  workers  under  sixteen — the  inspector 
could  concentrate  his  attention  more  closely  than  ever  before 
upon  machinery,  elevators,  fire-escapes,  sanitation,  light  and 
air  arrangements,  etc.  It  would  then  be  clearly  recognized, 
as  it  is  not  now,  that  the  prime  requisite  for  a  factory  inspec- 
tor is  a  practical  knowledge  of  machinery  and  a  fair 
amount  of  technical  skill ;  and  it  could  then  be  seen  that  a 
civil  service  test  is  both  necessary  and  practicable.  In 
fact,  we  might  hope  in  time  to  evolve  a  factory  inspector  of 
the  type  found  in  England,  where  he  is  a  thoroughly  trained 
man,  a  graduate  of  one  of  the  great  universities  or  of  a 
technical  school,  and  a  student  of  the  law  in  addition ;  and 
where  the  position  is  a  life  one,  carrying  some  distinction 
for  the  incumbent.  Of  course,  we  ought  not  to  get  all  this 
for  twelve  hundred  dollars  a  year ! 

Age  Certificate  After  Sixteen. 

But  even  as  they  stand,  these  sections  are  faulty.  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  not  enough  that  children  under  sixteen 
shall  be  provided  with  certificates.  To  strengthen  the  hands 
of  those  who  are  trying  to  enforce  the  new  law  one  serious 
defect  should  be  remedied  by  the  insertion  of  a  clause  pro- 
viding that  any  child  worker  claiming  to  be  sixteen  years 
of  age  or  older  shall,  on  demand  of  the  inspector,  produce 
an   age  certificate   properly  certified   and   substantiated   by 


158  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

appropriate  corroborative  evidence.^  Otherwise,  in  time 
there  will  be  no  boys  or  girls  between  fourteen  and  sixteen 
except  honest  ones  and  small  ones.  At  present  the  mere 
statement  by  a  child  that  he  or  she  is  sixteen  years  old  must 
be  accepted  by  a  deputy,  unless  there  is  legal  evidence  to  tlie 
contrary.  In  that  case  the  child  might  be  dismissed,  though 
it  is  doubtful  whether  the  employer  could  be  prosecuted 
unless  his  previous  knowledge  of  the  facts  were  proven. 

Issuing  Olid  Filing  of  Certificate. 

Then,  again,  the  matter  of  issuing  employment  certifi- 
cates should  be  left  with  school  superintendents — city,  bor- 
ough or  county — only,  with  pow^r  given  them  to  deputize 
for  the  actual  performance  of  the  duty.^  This  is  done  in 
cities  and  boroughs,  but  not  in  the  counties  at  large,  where 
the  W'Ork  is  assigned  to  "principal  teachers."  This  created 
a  great  deal  of  unnecessary  friction  and  distress  during  the 
summer  of  1905  in  the  villages  and  rural  districts,  where  the 
teachers  were  miles  away  and  no  one  was  at  hand  to  issue 
the  certificates.  Had  the  power  to  do  this  been  in  the  hands 
of  the  county  superintendent,  a  responsible  party  whose 
headquarters  are  fixed  and  well  known,  he  would  have 
appointed  a  deputy  in  each  school  district,  whether  a  teacher 
or  not,  just  as  the  city  or  borough  superintendent  arranged 
for  in  his  own  bailiwick. 

And  with  this  admission  of  the  county  superintendent 
to  a  share  in  the  responsibility  of  issuing  employment  certifi- 
cates there  would  go  a  corresponding  change  in  section  6, 
to  the  effect  that  certificates  issued  outside  the  limits  of  a 

*This  requirement  is  laid  down  in  the  New  York  law,  and  must  be 
adopted  by  any  state  which  prefers  to  place  the  emphasis  on  age  rather 
than  on  mental  and  physical  proficiency. 

'A  happy  combination  of  state  and  local  power  might  be  effected 
by  placing  the  responsibility  for  the  issuing  of  employment  certificates 
upon  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  who  would,  in 
turn,  carry  out  the  law  through  the  aid  of  the  city,  borough  and  county 
superintendents. 


Child  Labor  Code.  159 

city  or  borough,  and  hence  by  the  county  superintendent 
and  his  various  deputies,  should  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
county  superintendent  where  they  would  be  fairly  accessible 
to  any  who  might  have  occasion  to  examine  the  records. 
The  present  arrangement,  by  which  such  rural  certificates 
must  be  filed  at  the  factory  inspector's  office  in  Harrisburg, 
is  a  great  inconvenience  to  all  concerned  and  an  uninten- 
tional discrimination  in  favor  of  the  boroughs  and  cities. 

Requirements  for  Certificate. 

The  first  paragraph  of  section  6,  describing  the  certifi- 
cate itself,  while  imposing  a  rather  onerous  burden  upon  the 
party  who  fills  it  out,  is  unobjectionable  as  to  the  personal 
description  and  residence  requirement,  and  also  as  to  the 
one  relating  to  physical  ability.  But  as  to  the  educational 
provisions  of  this  paragraph,  namely,  ability  to  read  and 
write  simple  sentences  in  the  English  language  and  com- 
pliance with  the  educational  laws  of  the  commonwealth,  the 
first  is  valueless  as  a  means  of  discovering  the  child's  ability 
to  read  or  write  comprehendingly,  intelligently,  as  befits  a 
child  whose  school  days  are  at  an  end;  and  the  possibilities 
of  the  second,  as  we  have  seen,®  have  been  developed  by 
only  one  man  in  the  state.  The  path  that  leads  straight  out 
of  all  this  difficulty  is  to  require  all  alike  to  have  completed 
a  certain  prescribed  year  of  our  public  schools,  or  its  equiva- 
lent in  private  or  parochial  schools,  in  addition  to  having 
reached  the  fourteenth  birthday.  This  would  be  plain  and 
definite,  and  would  act  as  a  spur  for  indifferent  or  careless 
parents,  and  so  aid  in  solving  the  truancy  problem. 

A  properly  conducted  state  bureau  of  vital  statistics 
would  aid  in  establishing  proof  of  age  for  all  children  born 
within  the  commonwealth.  But  it  is  hard  to  discover  any 
generally  applicable  method  for  obtaining  corroborative 
evidence  of  age  for  those  unprovided  with  such  evidence  by 
church  or  state.    Partly  because  of  this  recognized  difficulty, 

•Chapter  X. 


i6o  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

and  partly  because  after  all  a  minimum  age  requirement  is 
but  a  rough  approximation  of  the  average  period  at  which 
society  believes  the  working  life  may  safely  begin,  there  is 
a  growing  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  imposition  of 
such  an  age  test  is  of  far  less  importance  than  the  prescrip- 
tion of  a  definite  standard  of  mental  and  physical  develop- 
ment. Such  a  standard  would  seem  to  call  for  the  completion 
of  the  fifth,  or  a  higher,  school  grade,  properly  attested  by 
superintendent  or  teacher;  and  for  a  physical  examination 
by  a  responsible  physician,  which  should  discover  a  minimum 
height  of  five  feet  and  a  minimum  weight  of  eighty  pounds, 
together  with  a  fair  degree  of  health  and  strengths  No  boy 
or  girl  who  fails  to  establish  by  proper  evidence  that  he  or 
she  has  reached  the  age  of  sixteen  years  should  be  exempt 
from  this  requirement. 

Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  in  the  not  distant  future 
Pennsylvania  (along  with  other  progressive  common- 
wealths) will  not  allow  her  future  citizens  to  cut  short  their 
scholastic  preparation  for  the  responsibilities  of  citizenship 
until  they  shall  have  completed  the  grammar  school,  or  its 
equivalent,  or  have  reached  the  age  of  sixteen  years  ?  With 
special  "rush"  classes  for  the  foreign  children  of  our  cities, 
and  with  proper  enlargement  of  our  public  school  curriculum, 
through  manual  and  other  training,  which  shall  stimulate  the 
interest  and  develop  the  powers  of  every  normal  child,  this 
high  requirement  would  prove  no  hardship. 

A  decade  of  years  ago  Mrs.  Florence  Kelley,  then  chief 
factory  inspector  of  Illinois,  in  an  address  before  the  twenty- 
third  National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correction,  ex- 
pressed a  hope  that  will  come  in  time  to  have  the  force  of 
prophecy :  "Let  us  have  every  child  in  school  every  day  of 
the  school  year,  until  he  or  she  is  sixteen  years  of  age.  Let 
us  have  manual  training  all  the  way  up,  and  technical  train- 
ing the  last  two  years.  Let  us  prohibit  all  employment  of 
children  for  wages  until  they  are  sixteen  years  of  age,  except 

^See  the  National  Consumers'  League  Handbook  for  1906,  p.  42. 


Child  Labor  Code.  i6i 

at  farming  or  gardening.  Then,  after  ten  years  of  rigid  en- 
forcement of  this,  let  us  see  whether  we  have  not  taken  an 
unexpectedly  long  step  in  the  direction  of  solving  several 
problems  connected  with  delinquency,  the  tramp  difficulty, 
and  the  incompetency  of  the  unemployed." 

Age  AfHdavit. 

Whether  the  provision  for  an  affidavit  of  the  child's 
age  by  parent  or  guardian  should  remain  in  force  is  doubtful. 
As  a  means  of  getting  at  the  truth  it  was  long  ago  proved 
worthless,  and  its  educational  value  for  the  one  taking  the 
oath  is  still  more  questionable.  However,  if  the  affidavit 
is  to  be  retained,  by  all  means  let  it  be  taken  before  the  same 
school  authority  who  issues  the  employment  certificate,  and 
to  whom  should  be  given  the  power  to  administer  oaths. 
The  affidavit  would  then  be  taken  before  the  party  who  was 
most  immediately  concerned  with  the  educational  welfare 
of  the  child,  and  the  one  who  possessed,  or  should  possess, 
the  best  evidence  available  as  to  the  children's  ages. 

This  information  is  supposed  to  have  been  secured  to 
the  school  authorities  by  section  4  of  the  act  of  July  11, 
1 90 1,®  which  enacts  that  "the  assessors  of  voters  of  every 
district,  when  not  notified  ...  to  the  contrary  by  the 
school  board,"  shall  make  a  "careful  and  correct  list"  of  all 
children  of  school  age  (between  six  and  sixteen  years)  in 
his  district.  This  list  must  contain  the  name,  date  of  birth, 
sex,  nationality,  residence,  etc.,  together  with  the  name  and 
address  of  the  parent  or  guardian,  and  the  name  and  loca- 
tion of  the  school  where  the  child  is  enrolled,  or  the  reason 
for  non-enrolment ;  and,  finally,  the  name  and  address  of 
the  employer  of  any  child  under  sixteen,  when  the  child  is 
regularly  employed.  This  enumeration,  after  being  ap- 
proved by  the  secretary  of  the  school  district,  is  to  be  sent  by 
the  assessor  to  the  county  commissioners,  who  shall  send 

*P.  L.,  p.  661.    School  Laws  and  Decisions,  1903,  pp.  89-91. 


1 62  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

it  to  the  secretary  of  the  school  district.  It  is  probably 
intended  that  the  secretary  of  the  school  district  shall  pass 
all  this  information  on  to  the  various  principals  or  teachers 
in  the  district.  What  the  law  actually  says  is  that  the  secre  - 
tary  "shall  immediately  furnish  the  principal  or  teacher  of 
each  school  with  a  correct  list  of  all  children  in  his  or  her 
district  who  are  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  act."  Such 
a  "correct  list"  could  be  of  little  value  unless  it  contained 
the  data  on  which  the  list  itself  was  based. 

The  law  explicitly  states  that  the  assessors  are  to  make 
up  their  lists  "at  the  spring  registration  of  voters,  or  as 
soon  as  possible  thereafter ;"  and  that  the  county  commis- 
sioners shall  send  certified  copies  of  these  lists  to  the  school 
district  secretaries  "prior  to  July  15  of  each  year,"  the 
latter,  in  turn,  to  make  up  their  lists  for  the  superintendents 
and  teachers  "immediately" — say,  not  later  than  August 
15  or  September  i.  But  the  superintendents  complain 
that,  through  gross  negligence  somewhere,  they  actually 
receive  the  lists  in  November  or  December,  when  the  school 
year  is  well  advanced.  Were  the  city,  borough  and  county 
superintendents  to  get  this  information  at  the  beginning  of 
the  school  year,  and  were  it  as  detailed  as  that  secured  by 
the  assessors,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  completely  the  superin- 
tendents would  be  masters  of  the  situation  in  the  granting 
of  certificates. 

Fortunately,  there  is  an  excellent  proviso  in  this  school 
law,  to  the  effect  that,  "prior  to  February  i  of  any  year, 
any  board  of  directors  or  controllers  of  any  school  district 
may  authorize  such  enumeration  to  be  made  by  the  attend- 
ance officers  or  other  persons  .  .  .  under  the  same 
conditions  as  .  .  .  for  assessors."  And,  further,  at- 
tendance officers  or  school  superintendents  or  school  board 
secretaries  have  power  to  add  to  the  list  from  time  to  time. 
Certain  boroughs  are  planning  to  do  their  own  enumerating 
hereafter,  so  as  to  have  the  information  more  reliable  and 
in  time  to  be  of  use. 


Child  Labor  Code.  163 

Fees  for  Certificate. 

All  fees  now  paid  in  the  securing  of  employment  certifi- 
cates should  be  abolished.  If  no  affidavit  were  required  of 
parent  or  guardian,  the  notary's  fee  ( twenty-five  cents)  would 
disappear.  If  the  (future)  State  Bureau  of  Vital  Statistics 
were  compelled  to  place  copies  of  its  birth  records  for  each 
county,  borough  or  city  in  the  hands  of  the  respective  super- 
intendents, the  fee  so  often  paid  for  corroborative  evidence 
would  likewise  drop  out.  Nor  should  the  school  superin- 
tendent or  his  deputy,  who  alone  ought  to  have  the  power 
to  issue  these  certificates,  be  recompensed  by  a  fee — and  for 
two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  a  considerable  number  of 
the  applicants  can  ill  afford  to  pay  twenty-five  or  fifty  cents 
for  the  mere  privilege  of  working.  And,  in  the  second  place, 
there  would  be  no  guarantee  against  the  reappearance  of  the 
abuses  which  prevailed  under  the  old  law.  Accusations  that 
certificates  had  been  handed  out  for  the  sake  of  the  fees 
would  certainly  be  made,  no  matter  how  unjustifiably,  and 
the  burden  of  proof  would  somehow  be  shifted  from  the 
accuser  to  the  accused.  However,  the  task  is  a  heavy  one, 
especially  in  manufacturing  districts,  and  the  overworked 
and  underpaid  school  men  and  women  should  not  be  asked 
to  assume  an  additional  burden  without  additional  pay.  In 
the  cities  and  boroughs  this  would  perhaps  take  the  form  of 
a  clerk  or  clerks  supplied  and  paid  by  the  school  district  or 
by  the  state,  the  number  of  said  clerks  depending  on  the 
school  enrolment.  Even  in  the  rural  districts  the  same 
arrangement  might  be  feasible,  the  attendance  officer  serving 
as  clerk  when  requested  so  to  do.  The  active  support  and 
co-operation  of  the  school  authorities  is  indispensable  in 
this  matter,  and  the  best  way  to  retain  it  is  not  by  abusing 
their  patience. 


IN  CONCLUSION. 

So  many  times  has  the  name  of  Captain  Delaney  been 
used  in  the  last  few  chapters,  and  often  in  words  of  implied 
censure,  that  the  reader  may  have  inferred  that  the  existing 
evils  are  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  chief  factory  inspector. 
Such  an  inference  is  only  a  half-truth,  at  best.  For  example, 
it  was  unfortunate  for  Mr.  Delaney,  as  he  must  have  dis- 
covered before  this,  that  at  the  time  the  child  labor  fight 
was  on  he  should  have  pursued  a  course  which  was  regarded 
as  not  straightforward,^  and  that  since  the  act  went  into 
operation  he  should  have  assumed  at  times  an  unfriendly 
attitude  toward  certain  requirements  of  the  very  law  he  had 
sworn  to  uphold.^  It  is  a  point  in  Mr.  Delaney's  favor, 
however,  that  during  the  first  five  months  of  his  adminis- 
tration, and  under  the  old  law,  he  should  have  dismissed 
nearly  two  thousand  children  found  to  be  illegally  employed, 
as  against  some  two  hundred  dismissed  by  Mr.  Campbell 
during  the  preceding  seven  months.  Several  times  as  many 
children  have  been  dismissed  by  the  Captain's  deputies  as  by 
those  of  all  his  predecessors  together ;  and  since  about  the 
beginning  of  the  year  1906,  with  the  co-operation  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,  heavy  fines  have  been 
imposed,  even  in  Philadelphia,  where  prominent  manufac- 
turers and  merchants  had  so  long  been  permitted  to  set  the 

'See  Chapter  VII. 

*"The  features  which  you  object  to  were  forced  on  us  against  our 

most  vigorous  protest  by  the  child  labor  organization The 

frills  and  nonsensical  features  that  you  protest  against  are  to  be  elim- 
inated from  our  certificate.  .  .  .  Our  next  legislature  will  undoubt- 
edly correct  the  worst  evils  of  that  part  of  the  present  law  known  as 
the  child  labor  certificate." — Quoted  from  a  letter  of  Captain  Delaney, 
in  National  Glass  Budget  of  May  26,  1906. 

(164) 


In  Conclusion.  165 

law  at  defiance.  However,  the  attempts  at  enforcement 
have  been  too  spasmodic,  and  the  ratio  between  prosecutions 
and  violations  (about  one  in  every  fifty  for  1905)  too  dis- 
proportionate. 

It  may  be  conceded  that  a  man  of  the  Roosevelt  type 
would  have  achieved  results  not  dreamed  of  under  the  pres- 
ent regime.  But  his  path  would  have  been  a  thorny  one. 
He  would  have  discovered  that,  like  the  way  of  the  trans- 
gressor, the  way  of  the  reformer  is  hard.  To  begin  with, 
he  never  could  have  gotten  the  appointment! 

The  present  incumbent  of  the  office  is  a  perfectly  legiti- 
mate product  of  spoils  politics — of  "The  System,"  as  it  has 
so  aptly  been  styled.  His  political  training  and  point  of 
view  are  of  the  old  order,  which  we  would  like  to  think  is 
being  rapidly  replaced  by  a  new  standard  of  political  ethics. 
Personally,  Mr.  Delaney  is  a  man  of  pleasing  address,  who 
says  frankly  that  he  is  a  politician,  and  adds  that  no  one 
but  a  politician  could  run  the  office  he  holds.  Certain  it  is 
that  none  other  than  a  cautious  politician  could  have  re- 
mained in  the  office  at  all,  subject  as  it  has  been  to  boss 
domination. 

We  may,  then,  get  our  final  perspective  on  the  depart- 
ment in  a  wholly  impersonal  way,  without  fearing  to  do 
injustice  to  any  man.  Viewed  in  this  light,  it  is  hardly  too 
much  to  say  that  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  are  getting  just 
as  good  an  administration  of  the  office  as  they  insist  upon 
having,  or  even,  perhaps,  as  they  want.  The  writer  has  heard 
a  doubt  expressed,  by  a  close  student  of  political  affairs 
and  especially  of  the  subject  we  are  discussing,  whether 
a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  really  care  for 
an  efifective  enforcement  of  the  factory  law,  and  would 
stand  by  the  man  who  would  give  them  such  an  administra- 
tion. It  is  probably  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  there  has 
existed  an  active  and  unscrupulous  minority  which  was  per- 
sonally interested  in  the  perpetuation  of  certain  abuses,  and 


1 66  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennyslvania. 

that  an  apathetic  majority  could  not  realize  that  executive 
officials  need  the  hearty  co-operation  and  sympathy  of  those 
who  stand  for  righteousness,  to  offset  the  forces  of  evil 
which  are  so  vigilant  in  their  own  defense. 

Is  the  great  industrial  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania 
determined  that  the  Department  of  Factory  Inspection  shall 
be  run  in  the  interest  of  those,  and  those  only,  whom  the 
factory  law  was  enacted  to  protect?  Pennsylvania  should 
assume  her  rightful  place  of  leadership  in  this  splendid  ex- 
periment in  the  realm  of  social  politics. 


APPENDIX. 


Factory  Legislation  in  England  (1802-1847), 

The  counties  in  England  where  water-power  was  most 
abundant  were  those  of  Derbyshire,  Nottinghamshire,  and 
especially  Lancashire.  As  these  were  but  sparsely  inhabited, 
the  sudden  demand  for  thousands  of  workers  had  to  be  met 
by  importations  from  the  more  populous  districts  of  England 
and  Scotland.  Accordingly,  the  custom  soon  arose  of  pro- 
curing apprentices  from  the  parish  workhouses  of  the  large 
towns,  and,  once  off  their  hands,  the  overseers  of  the  parish 
paid  no  further  attention  to  the  offspring  whom  they  had 
thus  bound  out.  The  children  were  worked  in  day  and 
night  shifts,  were  badly  fed,  clothed  and  housed,  were 
treated  with  great  cruelty  by  their  masters,  and  rarely  was 
any  attention  paid  to  their  health,  education  or  morals. 

At  length,  malignant  fevers  broke  out  in  some  of  the 
factory  districts,  creating  general  alarm;  investigation  fol- 
lowed, and  the  demand  soon  arose  for  legislative  interposi- 
tion. Whereupon,  the  elder  Sir  Robert  Peel — himself  an 
employer  of  children  to  the  number  of  nearly  a  thousand — 
secured  the  passage  in  1802  of  his  so-called  "Health  and 
Morals  Act,"  the  first  of  the  English  factory  laws. 

This  act,  which  applied  only  to  apprentices,  restricted 
the  hours  of  labor  to  twelve  a  day;  forbade  any  labor  be- 
tween the  hours  of  nine  p.  m.  and  six  a.  m. ;  required  the 
walls  of  factories  to  be  whitewashed  twice  a  year,  and  that 
enough  windows  should  be  provided  to  supply  fresh  air; 
compelled  the  masters  to  furnish  each  apprentice  with  a  new 
suit  of  clothes  yearly;  insisted  upon  the  attendance  of  the 
apprentices  at  divine  service;  and,  finally,  ordered  that  they 
should  be  instructed  in  reading,  writing  and  arithmetic.  The 
justices  at  quarter  sessions  were  authorized  to  appoint  vis- 
itors of  such  factories,  with  suitable  powers. 

(167) 


1 68  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

The  act  had  Httle  other  effect  than  gradually  to  do 
away  with  the  employment  of  apprentices,  and  this  was 
made  possible  by  the  removal  of  the  factories  from  the  more 
remote  parts  of  the  country  to  the  centers  of  population, 
attendant  upon  the  substitution  of  steam  for  water  power. 
The  children  of  the  immediate  neighborhood  were  now  em- 
ployed, and  their  condition  soon  became  nearly  as  bad  as 
that  of  the  apprentices  had  been. 

Further  agitation  of  the  matter  was  postponed  by  the 
breaking  out  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  so  that  it  was  not 
until  1815  that  the  matter  again  came  before  Parliament. 
And  it  was  only  after  two  investigating  committees  (H.  of 
C.  1816,  H.  of  L.  1818-19)  had  reported  in  favor  of  factory 
legislation  that  an  act  no  longer  restricted  to  apprentices, 
but  applying  only  to  cotton  mills,  was  passed  in  1819. 

This  statute  provided  that  no  child  might  be  employed 
under  nine  years  of  age,  and  that  no  person  under  sixteen 
years  might  be  employed  at  night  work  for  more  than 
twelve  hours  a  day. 

The  next  English  factory  act  (applying,  like  the 
former,  only  to  cotton  mills)  was  that  of  1825,  which 
strengthened  the  preceding  act  by  compelling  the  attendance 
of  witnesses  at  trials ;  by  requiring  proprietors  to  keep  a 
record  book  containing  the  names  of  all  children  "suspected 
by  the  proprietor  of  being  under  nine  years  of  age,"  with 
the  signature  of  parent  or  guardian  to  the  statement  that 
such  child  was  over  nine  years,  which  statement  should 
exempt  the  proprietor  from  the  penalties  as  to  minimum  age ; 
and  by  lessening  the  number  of  working  hours  a  week  for 
children  under  sixteen,  through  an  abatement  of  three  hours 
on  Saturday,  thus  initiating  the  Saturday  half-holiday  move- 
ment in  England. 

In  1 83 1  the  maximum  age  of  restricted  labor  (in  cotton 
mills)  was  raised  from  sixteen  to  eighteen  years,  and  night 
work  was  now  prohibited  to  all  under  twenty-one  years  of 
age.     And  an  act  was  passed  "to  prohibit  the  payment,  in 


Appendix.  169 

certain  trades,  of  wages  in  goods  or  otherwise  than  in  the 
current  coin  of  the  realm."  This  "Truck  Act"  apphed  to  the 
manufacturers  of  cotton,  woolen,  linen,  silk,  fur,  iron,  steel, 
brass,  leather,  glass,  etc. 

As  none  of  these  acts  provided  for  factory  inspection,* 
they  were  as  little  enforced  as  were  similar  laws  later  on  in 
Pennsylvania,  and  something  more  had  to  be  done.  The 
ten  hours  movement,  then  rising  in  England,  found  its 
Parliamentary  champion  in  that  well-known  Irish  Tory, 
Mr.  Michael  Thomas  Sadler,  whose  investigating  committee 
of  1832  brought  to  light  the  pitiable  condition  of  the  factory 
children  in  a  way  that  roused  the  English  public  to  a  realiz- 
ing sense  of  its  duty  toward  them.  And  though  the  oppo- 
nents of  factory  legislation  were  able  to  postpone  further 
enactments  for  a  brief  time,  by  securing  the  appointment  of 
the  royal  commission  of  1833,  Y^^  the  movement  was  not 
to  be  sidetracked  for  long.  This  commission,  after  a  careful 
investigation,  reported  unequivocally  in  favor  of  further 
legislation,  and  the  government  was  compelled  to  pass  the 
Althorpe  act  that  same  year  (1833). 

This  act — which  was  extended  to  cotton,  woolen,  flax 
and  silk^  mills — provided  for  an  eight-hour  working  day  for 
children  between  nine  and  thirteen  years  of  age,  and  two 
hours  of  school  attendance  each  day ;  lowered  the  maximum 
age  for  night  work  from  twenty-one  to  eighteen  years ;  sub- 
stituted a  surgeon's  certificate  for  that  of  a  parent  or  guar- 
dian ;  and,  above  all,  authorized  the  crown  to  appoint  four 
factory  inspectors,  who  should  have  charge  of  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  act.  England  had  now  set  the  pattern  for  all 
effectual  factory  legislation,  by  providing  for  a  Department 
of  Factory  Inspection.  . 

In  1840  Lord  Ashley  secured  the  appointment  of  two 
commissions,  one  to  inquire  into  the  working  of  the  present 

'Except  the  act  of  1802.  and  the  "visitors"  therein  authorized  were 
rarely  appointed,  and  their  visits   (when  made)   usually  perfunctory. 
The  silk  mills  received  certain  favoring  exemptions. 


170  Factory  Legislation  in  Pennsylvania. 

factory  act,  the  other  to  investigate  the  condition  of  children 
working  in  mines  and  in  factories  not  covered  by  the  existing 
legislation.  The  first  of  these  commissions,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  Lord  Ashley,  found  that  there  had  been  a  decided 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  factory  children  since  the 
last  inquiry,  but  recommended  several  changes  in  the  law, 
many  of  which  were  embodied  in  the  act  of  1844. 

Part  II  of  the  second  report^  showed  that  in  the  un- 
regulated trades  children  commenced  work  at  from  four  to 
seven  years  of  age,  that  they  were  often  badly  treated,  and 
that  the  hours  of  labor  were  long  and  exhausting.  The  first 
of  these  trades  to  be  regulated  was  that  of  dyeing  and  print- 
ing, in  1845,  ^"<^  others  followed  some  years  later. 

The  inquiry  into  the  working  of  the  act  of  1833  was 
followed  by  the  passage  of  Sir  James  Graham's  act  of  1844, 
which  limited  the  hours  of  labor  of  women,  as  well  as  chil- 
dren, to  twelve  hours  a  day;  reduced  the  hours  of  child 
labor  from  eight  to  six  and  a  half ;  provided  for  the  fencing 
of  machinery,  and  the  prompt  reporting  of  all  accidents  to 
the  district  inspector;  and  materially  strengthened  the  en- 
forcement clauses. 

At  last,  in  1847,  Lord  Ashley  and  his  co-workers  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  that  for  which  they  had  so  long  been 
striving:  the  ten-hour  working  day  for  women  and  young 
persons.  And  this  was  the  status  of  factory  legislation  in 
England  at  the  time  when  Pennsylvania  made  its  first 
attempt  in  the  same  direction. 

Note. — For   more   extended   information   on    factory   legislation   in 
England,  see  the  following: 

1.  English  Factory  Legislation.    Ernest  von  Plener. 

2.  The  Modern  Factory  System.    W.  Cooke  Taylor. 

3.  The  Life  and  Work  of  the  Seventh  Earl  of  Shaftesbury.  Edwin 
Hodder. 

4.  Evils  of  the  Factory  System.     Charles  Wing. 

5.  The  Curse  of  the  Factory  System.     John  Ficlden,  M.  P. 

'Part  I  related  wholly  to  mines. 


Appendix.  1 7 1 

6.  The  History  of  the  Factory  Movement  from  the  Year  1802  to 
the  Enactment  of  the  Ten  Hours  Bill  in  1847.  "Alfred"  (Samuel 
Kydd). 

7.  The  Factory  Acts.     Alexander  Redgrave. 

8.  The  Reign  of  Law.     Duke  of  Argyll. 

9.  "Capital"   (pp.  365-515).     Karl  Marx. 

10.  The  Condition  of  the  Working   Class  in   England.     Frederick 
Engels. 


INDEX 


Accidents,   reporting  of,  provision   for,   124. 
Adler,  Felix,  91. 
Althorpe  act,  i6g. 

Anthracite   Coal   Strike  Commission,  its  bearing  on  child  labor  move- 
ments, 90. 
Appendix,  167. 
Ashley,  Lord,  169-70. 

Baker-shop,  acts  of  1897,  1901,  75;  provisions  of,  76;  penalties  under, 
Tj;  weaknesses  of,  yy;  provisions  of  law  at  present  time,  122. 

Beaver,  Gov.,  60. 

Biddle,  Judge,  83. 

Blankenburg,  Mrs.  R.,  56. 

Blodgett,  Lorin,  statistics  on  employment  of  women  and  children  by,  52. 

Boiler  inspection,  81 ;  boilers,  regulations  concerning,  123. 

Brown,  Justice,  84. 

Bureau  of  Industrial  Statistics,  establishment  of,  51 ;  report  of  1881  and 
1883  concerning  employment  of  women  and  children,  52;  report 
for  1886,  53. 

Cambria  Iron  Company,  46. 

Campbell,  Mrs.  Ellis,  86,  88,  91. 

Campbell,  James.  72,  127. 

Central  Labor  Union,  89. 

Child  Labor  laws,  early,  18;  act  of  1848,  18;  provision  of,  19;  cam- 
paign 1903-05,  86;  law,  provision  of,  87-90;  organizations  assisting 
in,  91;  evils  of,  95-96;  bill  of  1905,  99;  bill  of  Central  Union  of 
Textile  Workers  of  Philadelphia,  100 ;  bill  of  Mr.  Delaney,  loi ; 
co-operation  of  Public  Education  Association  of  Pliiladelphia,  103; 
services  of  S.  M.  Lindsay,  104 ;  final  passage  of  act,  104 ;  code,  135 ; 
minimum  age  of,  135 ;  law  overthrown  by  Superior  Court  decision, 
149;  advantage  of  compulsory  education  law,   154. 

Children  in  trades,  97;  employment  certificate  for,  97;  perjury  of 
parents  for.  98. 

(173) 


174  Index. 

Citation  of  cases. 

Bake-shops : 

Coinmonwealth  tx  Junker,  1898,  78. 
Child  labor: 

Collett  z's.  Scott,  1906,  149. 

Commonwealth  vs.  IMacMillan  Hoopes,   1906,   153. 
Fire  escapes : 

Commonwealth  vs.   Emsley,   1888,  64. 
Commonwealth  vs.   Kitchenman,   1889,  64. 
Keely  vs.  O'Conner,  1884,  31. 
Moeller  vs.  Harvey,  1883,  27. 
Schott  vs.  Harvey,   1883,  29.  * 

Sevvell  vs.   Moore,    1892,  36. 
Labor  of  Adult  Women  : 

Commonwealth  2's.  Beatty,  1899,  83. 
Payment   of  wages : 

Commonwealth  vs.  Isenberg  &  Rowland,  1895,  44. 
Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman,  1886,  40. 
Hamilton  vs.  Jutte  &  Co.,  1894,  43. 
Kettering  vs.  Imperial  Coal  Co.,  1885,  40. 
Rowe  vs.  Haddock  et  al.,  1885,  40. 
Sally  vs.  Berwind-White  Coal  Mining  Co.,  1896,  43. 
Showalter  vs.  Ehlen  &  Rowe,  Appellants,  1897,  44. 
Taxation  of  store  orders : 

Commonwealth  vs.  Bethlehem  Steel  Co.,  1901,  50. 
Commonwealth  vs.  Lehigh  Coal  and  Navigation  Co..  1901, 

50. 
Commonwealth  vs.  Rochester  and  Pittsburg  Coal  and  Iron 
Co.,  1901,  50. 
Clark,  Justice,  opinion  of,  in  Keely  vs.   O'Conner,  32. 
Company  store  act  of  1891,  42;  opinions  of  Attorney-General  McCor- 
mick,  46;  Attorney-General  Hensel,  46;  legislative  fight  against,  47; 
taxation  of  orders  of,  48-49. 
Contract,  freedom  of,  vs.  the  taxing  power,  50 
Curtin,  Governor,  recommendations  of,  for  store-order  legislation,  :i7. 

Decisions  of  1848,  1849,  1855,  no  record  of,  24. 

Delaney,  Captain,  91,  130,  135 ;  services  of,  for  child  labor,   164-65 ;  bill 

of,  loi ;  circular  letter  of,  regarding  the  child  lal)or  law,  152. 
Donohue,  Mr.,  70. 

Duties,  administrative  of  chief  factory  inspector,  130. 
Dyottville  Glass  Factory  (1833),  plan  of  work  and  education  in,  5. 

Education  for  factory  children,  2. 


Index.  175 

Elevator  boys,  age  limit  applied  to,  66;  elevators,  provisions  regarding, 
114. 

Employment  certificates,  143 ;  statutes  of  the  law  regarding,  145 ;  opera- 
tion of  law,  146;  educational  tests  for,  147;  physical  test,  a  dead- 
letter,  148;  corroborative  evidence  of  age,  148;  fees  for,  149;  issu- 
ance of,  since  Superior  Court  ruling,  153 ;  suggestions  for  improve- 
ment in,  after  age  16,  157;  issuing  and  filing  of,  158;  requirement 
for,  159;  age  affidavit,  161. 

England,  factory  legislation  in,  167;  act  of  1802,  167;  act  of  1825,  168; 
report  of  Royal  Commission  of  1833,  169. 

Factory  acts,  general,  1887- 1893,  51;  act  of  1887,  51-54;  operation  of  act 
of  1893,  67;  acts  of  1897,  1901,  80;  summary  of  changes  of,  in  1897, 
80;  inconsistency  of  act  of  1901,  81. 

Factory  inspection,    department  of,  commitment  of  wages   act 
of  1887  to,  42;  bills  of,  1887,  54;  act  of  1889,  55-59;  opera- 
tion of  act  of  1889,  60;  jurisdiction  of,  over  fire  escapes, 
61 ;  organization  of,  60-62 ;   right  of,  125 ;  abuse  in  depart- 
ment of,  132. 
Factory   inspector,   first   appointee,    60 ;    second    appointee,    62 
report    for    1891,    1892,    62 ;    recommendations    of,    63,    68 
administrative  duties  of  chief,  130;  deputy,  number  of,  131 
annual  report  of,   132;   appointment  and  salaries  of,   133 
deputy,  increase  in  number  of,  86. 
Factory  legislation,  definition  of,  v ;  field  of,  v ;  control  of,  in 
England,    v ;    first    States    to    develop,    vi ;    efforts    toward 
legislation    in    1824,    I ;    beginning    of,    along    educational 
lines,   i;   in   1827-8,   2;   States  preceding   Pennsylvania,   17; 
act  of   1849,  20;   provisions  of,  21;   act  of   1855,  22;   pro- 
vision of,  22;   expansion  of,   1895-1901,  70;    administration 
of,  107. 
Fell,  Judge,  decision  of,  in  case  of  Hugh  French,  65. 
Fines,  disposition  of,  129. 

Finletter,  Judge,  opinion  of,  in  Commonwealth  vs.  Kitchenman,  64. 
Fire  escape,  legislation,  act  of  1879,  25 ;  provisions  of,  25 ;  provisions 
of  act  of  1883,  26 ;  acts  of  1885,  33 ;  further  legislation  needed,  35 ; 
conflict  of  jurisdiction,  concerning,  63;  arrest  of  Hugh  French 
under,  65;  fire  escapes,  provisions  for,  126;  not  applicable  to  cities 
of  first  and  second  class,  126,  128. 

Garrett,  Mrs.  Mary  E.,  87. 

Gilbert,  Lyman  D.,  99. 

Gordon,  Justice,  opinion  of,  in  Godcharles  vs.  Wiegman,  40,  42,  44. 

Gray,  Judge,  90. 


176  Index. 

Hare,  Judge,  opinion  of,  in  Moeller  vs.  Harvey,  28,  64. 
Hensel,  W.  U.,  interpretation  of  factory  act,  46,  67. 
Holman,  Mrs.,  55,  56. 
House  of  Refuge,  96. 

Johnston,  Gov.,  work  of,  for  child  labor  law  of  1848,   19,  20. 

Jones,  Edith,  92. 

Junker,  Jules,  contention  of,  in  regard  to  Sunday  work,  78. 

Keating,  J.  Percy,  99. 

Kelley,   Florence,   Mrs.,   55,   56,  87,    119;    article   of,   in  "Charities   and 

the  Commons,"  151 ;  statement  of,  while  chief  factory  inspector  of 

Illinois,   160. 
Kirkpatrick,  W.  S.,  on  fire  escape  jurisdiction,  61. 
Knights  of  Labor,  its  advocacy  of  factory  legislation,  53,  54,  56. 

Lehigh  Manufacturing  Company,  95. 

Light  and  sanitation,   115. 

Lindsay,  Samuel  IMcCune,  92,  loi ;  his  service  for  child  labor  bill,  104. 

Lippincott,  Mrs.  Howard,  86. 

Lovejoy,  Owen  R.,  93. 

Marot,  Helen,  92. 

Martin,  W.  H.,  first  factory  inspector,  60. 

Milligan,  Mr.,  deputy  inspector,  74. 

Minors,  employment  prohibited,  142. 

Mitchell,  Justice,  opinion  of,  in  Commonwealth  vs.  Emsley,  64. 

Mumford,  Mrs.  Jos.  P.,  87. 

National  Child  Labor  Committee,  91. 

New  Century  Club,  56. 

Newsboys,  ruling  regarding,  107. 

New  Century  Guild,  56. 

Nibecker,  Mr.,  96. 

Noon  hour  intermission,  regulation  for,  no. 

Notices,  posting  of,  regarding  factory  laws,  etc.,  in. 

O'Donnell,  Hugh,  112,  117. 

O'Keefe,  Mr.,  70. 

O'Neill,  Mr.,  first  to  introduce  bills  for   factory  legislation,   i. 

Orders,  store,  legislation  against,  37-39,  4°;  taxation  of,  bills  for,  1897, 
1899,  47-49;  bill  of  1901,  49;  taxation  of,  1901-02,  decisions  regard- 
ing, 50. 

O'Reilly,  Mary,  70,  82. 


Index.  177 

Pattison,  R.  E.,  61,  62. 

Paxson,  Justice,  in  Schott  vs.  Harvey,  29. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  167. 

Penalty  for  violation  of  factory  laws,  128. 

Penn  Traffic  Co.,  Ltd.,  46. 

Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,  organized   1904,  90 ;  activity  of, 

91 ;  investigation  by,  in  1904,  92 ;  first  annual  report  of,  92 ;  annual 

report  for  1904-05,  99;  151. 
Pennsylvania  Federation  of  Labor,  89. 
Penrose,  Boies,  loi. 
Philadelphia,    activity    of    her    representatives    for    factory    legislation, 

I,  2,  4. 
Philadelphia    Centra]    Union   of    Textile   Workers,   work   of,   for   child 

labor  bill,  100. 
Philadelphia  Society  for  Organizing  Charity,  92. 
Pierce,  Mrs.  C,  56. 
Public  Education  Association  of  Philadelphia,  93,  136;  scholarships,  103. 

References  for  English  Factory  Legislation,   170. 
Rice,  Judge,  decision  of,  in  employment-certificate  clauses,  150. 
Richards,  Mr.,  speech  of,  in  legislature  for  education  for  factory  chil- 
dren, 2,  3.  . 
Richmond,  Miss,  92,  99. 
Roberts,  Peter,  92. 

Sadler,  Sir  Michael  Thomas,  169. 

Safeguarding  of  machinery,  iii;  a  function  neglected,  112;  in  Eng- 
land, 114. 

Sanderson,  John  F.,  interpretation  of  word  "children,''  61. 

Sanville,  Miss,  on  "Child  Labor  and  the  Schools,"  155. 

Schoff,  Mrs.  Frederick,  87. 

Scholarships,  for  children  of  dependent  families,  136;  statistics  of,  137; 
orders  for,  137 ;  a  temporary  expedient,  138. 

School  attendance,  records  of,  94,  98. 

Senatorial  investigation  of  1837,  7 ;  report  of,  7,  17 ;  questions  asked  by 
committee,  9;  condition  in  cotton  mills,  10;  testimony,  14;  findings 
of  committee,  16. 

Simpson,  Alex.,  Jr.,  87,  89. 

Sonman   Coal  Mining  Company,  46. 

Sproul,  Senator,  87. 

Staake,  Judge,  decision  of  (1906),  in  employment-certificate  clauses,  153. 

State  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  86,  91. 


178  Index. 

States  preceding  Pennsylvania  in  factory  legislation,  17 ;  in  factory  in- 
spection, 57. 

Stewart,  Ardemus,  comment  of,  on  opinion  regarding  Godcharles  ts. 
Wiegman,  41. 

Story,  quotation  from,  on  contracts,  38. 

Sweat-shop,  act  of  1895,  70 ;  appointment  of  deputies  under,  71;  opera- 
tion of,  72;  penalties  under,  72;  acts  of  1897,  1900,  1901,  73;  family 
exemption,  clause  of,  74;  powers  under,  74;  provisions  of,  under 
present  factory  law,  116. 

Sweat-shops,  location  of,  in  Philadelphia,  70;  negligent  inspectors  of,  in 
Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  117,  118;  suggestions  for  remedying 
conditions  of,  120. 

Tenement,  manufacture  in,  suggested  regulations  for,  120. 
Toilet  accommodations,  109. 
"Truck  Act,"  169. 

Vacation,  permits,  138;  schools  in  Philadelphia,  139. 

Wages,  attempts  to  regulate  payment  of,  37 ;  bill  of  1879,  37;  act  of 
1881,  38;  acts  of  1881,  declared  unconstitutional  (1886),  40;  act 
of  1887,  41;  semi-monthly,  41;  act  of  1891,  42;  under  supervision 
of  Department  of  Factory  Inspection,  42. 

Wagner,  Miss  Mary,  office  deputy,  60. 

Walton,  Speaker,  loi. 

Watchhorn,  Robert,  second  factory  inspector,  62,  63,  65-68. 

Werner,  Mrs.  Louis,  55,  56. 

Wheaton,  Judge,  on  employment-certificate  clauses,  149. 

Williams,  Talcott,  92. 

Wilson,  Judge,  78. 

Women,  adult,  decisions  relating  to,  82;  providing  seats  for,  while 
employed,  108. 

Women  and  children,  statistics  relating  to,  51. 

Women  and  young  persons,  working  day  for,  in  England,  170. 

Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  56. 

Woodruff,  Clinton  Rogers,  on  store  order,  49. 

Woodward,  Dr.,  99. 

"Working  children  of  Pennsylvania,"  the  94. 

Working  day  for  minors  and  females,  139;  unfortunate  provisions 
of  law  for,  140;  violation  of  law  during  Christmas  holidays,  142; 
for  adult  women,  decision  respecting,  82. 

Workingmen's  Association,  55. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


MAY-     1970 

APR  0  9  1992 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


AA    000  594  127    3 


